I don’t know how happy UltraVires is, but I am not.
Is thisthe lie you are talking about?
Which part of this do you think isn’t true, and what is your “clear and obvious” evidence?
Regards,
Shodan
The part where he doesn’t recall who was handling it, for one thing:
For a guy who “wasn’t involved” and “can’t recall who was involved” in Pryor’s nomination process, he’s got quite a paper trail. :dubious:
And if I had not expressly stated that it would not get incontrovertible proof for a charge of perjury, then you might have a point.
But, as I did specifically say that, then your post here is utterly useless, it is simply repeating what I said, but doing it in a way that makes you think that you are disagreeing and winning a point. You are not, not at all.
What I said is that I believe he was lying out his ass on that.
Hmmm, to answer your question in the exact way you want it answered. You know, if you want people to do that, then you should stop avoiding questions yourself, so I will answer, but not with your “simple yes or no”, as you should be well aware, a simple yes or no is a stupid way to answer such a leading question.
Now, do I have incontrovertible evidence that they read newspapers or watch the news or pay any attention whatsoever to the world around them? No, I don’t. It could be that they were locked in a room stuck under a rock for the entirety of the time from the nominations to the day they were rescued and asked about slang terms.
But, given even the most basic level of engagement with the world, they would be well aware of the claim that Kavanagh made about the term. So, do I have proof that they are not blind and deaf to the world around them? No, but I do believe that they followed his lead, which is what I said in the initial post that you keep trying to get me to provide rock hard evidence for that they backed his story.
Now that that is cleared up, I assume that you would like to address the rest of the article, or should we assume that you are only questioning on this one point because you accept the rest of it as true?
This is probably like the blackout thing, but we’ll run with it. What is your evidence that Kavanaugh really did remember it, fifteen years after the fact, and that it wasn’t Ben Powell?
Regards,
Shodan
Heh.
If he actually cannot remember, after being involved to the degree that he’d been getting that much email on it, I would think that his mental faculties are compromised to the point that he really does not belong on the bench.
What in the world would be the purpose of lying about something like that? If he remembered who was handling the confirmation, he would have just said Ben Powell. If he really remembered that it was Ben Powell, how did it help him by lying and saying that he didn’t recall?
And like Shodan said, that was fifteen years later in a situation where many people were involved but only a single person was “handling” it. There were many confirmation processes during the Bush Administration and I’m not so sure why it is so hard to believe, indeed so “clear and obvious” that he must have known this person’s name such that it amounts to perjury.
That is really scraping the bottom there. You might as well say that Ford committed perjury solely because she did not recall the location of the house.
So, ten years later he cannot remember every detail of every matter that he was not responsible for, and that makes him unfit for office? I am neither a politician nor a judge, and almost certainly less busy than Kavanaugh, but I doubt I could come up with the names of everyone who led every project at every job I worked at, especially nine years after the fact.
So he got two emails nine years earlier, and he cannot come up with every detail off the top of his head on ten seconds notice.
Is this the “clear and obvious” you were talking about? It looks more like a clear and obvious nothingburger, especially since the Dems could do nothing with it during his earlier hearings.
Got anything else? Maybe we can do the one where he can’t remember the names of every associate at every law firm in Washington DC for the last twenty years.
Regards,
Shodan
Looks like Rationalization ain’t just a river in Egypt, either.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
No. I’m questioning this one point because it’s the easiest one I could readily recall as having been disproven. It would be a mistake to assume that I think the rest of it is true. I have previously said:
If those statements left you with the impression that I “accept the rest of it as true”, I don’t know what else to tell you. I’m flabbergasted.
Hahaha. You think you proved something. Totes adorbs.
Okay, thank you for giving us the definition of cherry picking and admitting that that is what you are doing.
No, I get the impression that you are attempting an ad hominem fallacy, in that, by (very poorly) questioning one claim, you can use that to discredit the rest. That is poor form of argument, and there is not a single person who will be fooled by it who is not already fooled themselves into thinking that this sort of disreputable tactic is a valid method of having a productive conversation.
I was giving you an out, and rather than force you to admit that you are trying to play this game, that you could then move onto another claim that you though was incorrect, but you are instead doubling down on this dishonest argument rhetoric, so I, and no one, will no longer have any interest in engaging with that sort of posting behavior.
ETA: I would add the fact that your questioning of the one claim was very poorly done, and really just was you reasserting your opinion, over and over again. So, you’re “disproven” claim is still, well, disproven. Even your attempt at an ad hominem has failed, miserably.
shrug I’m confident that I’ve demonstrated my point to the less-stridently-partisan readers.
Your impression is wrong. What was being attempted was an argument from authority - that Kavanaugh must be guilty because GQ says so. Discrediting one claim from GQ casts doubt on the rest of their claims.
The claim “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that” is discredited by showing four examples of people from that high school did mean that.
Fortunately you don’t speak for everyone, so this claim is also discredited.
Regards,
Shodan
Where do those quotes come from? Who are you quoting?
The one in the quotebox came from k9bfriender, in post #271. I thought it was more than a tad presumptuous to try to make a sweeping claim about “no one”, but he’s free to try. It’s the Internet. I’m not the least bit concerned I might run out of people to debate with.
What? Are you claiming that the phrase, “Nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that,” appears in post 271?
No, I’m claiming the phrase “I, and no one, will no longer have any interest in engaging with that sort of posting behavior” does. I specified “The one in the quotebox” to try to avoid precisely the sort of confusion your post demonstrates, but I see now that was for naught.
I wasn’t asking about the his use of the quote function which includes a link back to the quoted post.
I was asking about the phrase in quotation marks which I quoted.
This one… “nobody from that high school ever thought the term meant that”. The only quote in my post. Not some other quote from some other post. It’s weird that I feel the need to explain this.
Who is he quoting? Ray Bolger?
Why did you use the plural form (“those quotes”) if you were just asking about a singular quote?
I used the word quotes as shorthand for quotation marks. Does that matter?