Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 8 of 17     «   Prev   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   Next   »
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #106 
It's good that that link included parts of the statement by the Council that rather give the ideological game away. Robert Conquest's second law of politics comes to mind.

Exactly how Kavanaugh has besmirched his credibility I'm not sure. All the claims he lied have ended up being farcical. It was even claimed that using the word refuted to mean that none of the three alleged witness supported her claim was perjury. There is actually more evidence that Ford lied about numerous points than Kavanaugh did. It appears even now her and her lawyers are withholding her therapy notes and full polygraph results.

As for claims he didn't show the proper respect for Democratic senators, I agree They didn't deserve any, as Ben Shapiro put it. Who should he show respect to? The one who hid the allegation, Feinstein, til the last minute and then brought up the absurd gang rape allegation and invited an actress to make silly faces throughout the hearing? Or the human weathervane, Gillibrand, who said she believed Ford from the beginning, without any corroboration? Or Mazie Hirino, who said much the same thing in the course of denigrating men generally? Or Whitehouse, the Clouseau of the calender? Or Coombs, who breathlessly has brought to light an allegation that a prostitute was paid to dance in a frat house where Kavanaugh wasn't present, when he had already graduated from Yale? These people colluded with the media in smearing Kavanaugh as an evil gang rapist without any evidence. The idea a strong reaction to this somehow disqualifies him from sitting on the court is hard to take seriously. It reminds one vaguely of Stalinist mockeries of justice - someone is accused of all sorts of depravities, responds strongly, and then is condemned for insulting socialist justice. Interestingly, I was watching Clarence Thomas's remarks to the committee during the first high tech lynching (predictably left-liberals this time around have, when Thomas comes up, spoken as if Hill's claim was obviously true - it wasn't), and they are as strong as Kavanaugh's, and good on him. The difference there is the Democrats were still capable of shame, so that enough voted for him.

I think this is really a defining moment in the West. If the left get away with this circus - the lies and smears, the lack of evidence or care about it, the constantly moving goalposts, the insane leap from one dubious claim or charge to the next - it will be a terrible precedent.

I came across this interesting article Vox:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

It is interesting in ways the author probably didn't intend. It purports to show Kavanaugh's evasion. However, three things are readily apparent:

1.) It reminds us that we're comparing apples and oranges here. Ford faced a professional prosecutor, and one who wasn't on the attack. Kavanaugh faced politicians, including ten senate Democrats, most of whom acted like the worst of hacks, as Lindsey Graham eloquently pointed out.

2.) It reminds us of the disgraceful behaviour of the media in this affair, as it includes instances of Kavanaugh allegedly not answering questions where he did answer, or he was cut off, or it was a long, multipart question that he at least partially answered.

3.) Most of the times he didn't answer weren't serious questions. They were political nonsense, like would he call for a (pointless and unnecessary) FBI investigation. It was only one step away from questions like is he still beating his wife. No doubt Vox and the rest would be up in arms if he didn't answer that question yes or no (or if he did? Does it even matter what the charge is anymore or what he says or what evidence and witnesses come out?. These Berias have found the man, the crime will follow).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #107 
I had numerous news organs to choose from, but must admit I picked Huffington just to be a little mischievous. I wouldn't have had the article been other than a straightforward report of the facts. Leaving aside the highly contentious and probably ultimately unprovable sexual assault allegations, I wouldn't regard a history of teenage drinking and general high jinks as particularly discreditable. It's not like I spent my own teenage years in total sobriety. Kavanaugh could perfectly well have said yes, I did all that and I'm not proud of it, but I am of what I've achieved in my adult career, and also of the fact that even with all this wild (if not untypical for young men at that age) behaviour I successfully graduated. He didn't. He denied under oath that it ever happened, when there is plenty of evidence that it did. Do you really regard an applicant for membership of the highest court in the land committing perjury in pursuit of that goal as trivial?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #108 
It seems almost certain the FBI investigation was predictably pointless:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-finds-no-corroboration-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh-in-fbi-report-wsj

It is time to do justice and confirm Kavanaugh.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #109 
Well what's new, due process isn't something the Left have ever cared about.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #110 
Peter,

What did he deny under oath though? The problem with this charge is he didn't deny drinking or sometimes drinking too much. He may have put it more delicately than frankly, but that isn't lying and isn't perjury. He didn't deny the substance of his drinking and partying. The only point he did deny was the blacking out and memory lapses. I myself engaged in (moderate) binge drinking once a week, most weeks from my late teens to mid-twenties. Now, I was never one to drink really fast or very high amounts, but I only had one instance where I couldn't remember what happened for parts of the night before, when I was eighteen. It is perfectly possible Kavanaugh could have liked a drink, but not had memory lapses. It is, anyway, impossible to refute that, unless he ever mentioned it or wrote it down.


It is trivial, and yet, of course, the media-Democrats are playing a game of innuendo - he drank, therefore he must have often lost control and had memory loss; so he must have assaulted Ford and forgotten.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #111 
Putting the best face on something isn't the same as lying about it, I agree. But there is testimony that he did indeed have blackouts and memory lapses. The picture I see is that he couldn't admit to that, since that would make him more vulnerable on the sexual assault charges. But denying it was, in fact, perjury. I'm a bit tired of the constant vilification of Democrats. They probably deserve it, but it seems to me the Republicans deserve exactly the same, and aren't getting it.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #112 
Which testimony? There are a few people who knew him in high school and college who said he got quite drunk from time to time (though I don't think it was anything special for students his age), but others who likewise knew him have disputed this interpretation. At least one or two of the four or so who came forward to did they saw him heavily drunk admitted they would have no way of knowing whether he had memory lapses from this. I'm aware of no one who has said they personally saw him blackout. I don't think there is clear and compelling evidence he lied. The evidence seems muddled at best. The inference seems to be that binge drinking must equal memory loss and blackouts. In my experience and knowledge that just isn't the case, though it would depend on the details how likely it is (are we talking around a six pack or far more?).

I disagree here about Republicans. I don't think they've matched the Democrats, or come anywhere close. There are a few cases of course, but generally they have been better behaved than I would have expected. Few, for example, have simply dismissed Ford. Even Trump has been relatively benign for him, though far from perfect of course. However, Trump's most recent comments mocking Ford (though the lack of details in her account is interesting) seem to show this might be changing, unfortunately.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #113 
The testimony is that he was part of a culture of heavy and uncontrolled drinking, indeed a leader of it, as his own journals record. Blackouts and memory losses do indeed go with that territory, I'm afraid, as I can testify from my personal experience. If memories are muddled, that is explicable by both the passage of time and the fact that those around him were inevitably part of the same culture. Anyway, one way or another the whole sordid spectacle will shortly be drawing to a close, for which relief much thanks.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #114 
As far as I can see this culture seems to be just that of teenage and university partying. We're not talking about anything particularly unusual. I had plenty enough experience with that myself. The drinking is often excessive, but usually not extreme. Whilst I wouldn't say memory losses and blackouts aren't perhaps rare, they aren't everyday fare either in these kind of circles, in my experience. I have seen plenty of people get quite drunk, though most people didn't, most of the time, but that usually just ends in vomiting and being a bit sloppy, if anything, and a sore head the next day. Actually passing out, or being close, is quite a bit less frequent. I certainly wouldn't say someone who has been part of such activities would have to have blacked out from drinking, even once, or even that it is overwhelmingly likely that he did. This is hardly clear evidence for perjury.

I agree that it will be good to see this end.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #115 
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271503/ideology-racist-sexist-and-anti-christian-david-horowitz

Much of what this has been about, as we know, is the Culture War in which the campaign against Kavaunaugh plays a part. Namely, it is the forces of the Left and its allies arrayed against the defenders of national identity and Western Civilisation.

This explains the Left's willingness to embrace Islamists despite apparently incompatible agendas: because there is a share hatred of the West, of our freedom and way of life, and of Anglo-Saxon people and culture at the very bottom of it. It animates identity politics, the multicultural and indigenous industries with the intent of destroying predominantly Anglo nations from within.

You see here the open endorsement of double standards, for instance the NYT's appointment of the execrable Sarah Jeong, and the lack of outrage over Bill Clinton appearing on stage with Louis Farrakhan. Odd, the SPLC considers the Nation of Islam a "hate group" yet doesn't condemn liberals for associating with them. Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory clearly support Farrakhan, and I find that interesting that Muslims would support anyone from a group not accepted by orthodox Muslims. Of course because there is a shared political agenda: the destruction of the West from within.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,344
Reply with quote  #116 
One good thing to come out of the Kavanaugh mess is that the polling actually seems to have gone against the media-Democrats. I have seen polling that suggests that, though the uninformed seem be more against than for Kavanaugh, those who, by their own estimation, have been keeping up with the story or who are informed that there is no corroboration for Ford's claim back Kavanaugh by a small, but respectable, margin.

Amazingly, the Democrats also seem to have shot themselves in the foot for the mid-terms. They have managed to increase Republican enthusiasm and, therefore, probably turnout, which is usually low for a in the Whitehouse. The slim chance the Democrats had of taking the senate have got slimmer, and even their lead in the house has gone noticeably smaller (by up to half):

https://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2018/10/04/democrats-worried-npr-poll/
 
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #117 
Walid Phares, a critic of Islamism, has suggested that the Leftist-Islamist alliance have a vested interest in undermining Kavanaugh:

https://twitter.com/WalidPhares/status/1048308626472009728
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #118 
Meanwhile, the latest Simon Lincoln Reader piece. The first two paragraphs:

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2018-10-05-simon-lincoln-reader-sa-version-of-political-madness-is-keeping-faith-in-certain-leaders/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,081
Reply with quote  #119 
So Kavanaugh has been confirmed, leaving just about everyone involved smelling of the dungheap. More here on the comment referenced in the linked article from retired justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican nominee himself by the way, though so long ago that it was Gerald Ford who did the nominating. These kinds of considerations, along with severe doubt about the veracity of Kavanaugh's testimony, made me feel he was at best a questionable choice for the highest court in his land, at worst thoroughly unsuitable. But he is there now, following a vote that was on both sides dictated purely by considerations entirely partisan or otherwise solely concerned with political advantage and nothing to do with the fitness or otherwise of the candidate the senators were supposed to be evaluating, and we will just have to see how he lives up to his new responsibilities.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,040
Reply with quote  #120 
I'm glad that Kavanaugh has been confirmed. Because failing to do so would allow the Left to believe it can get away with murder. It's a blow to the plans of the ACLU, SPLC, CAIR, Amnesty International, etc to "remake" America as they wish.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.