Re: Kavanaugh-- In Case You're Keeping Score

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Webster’s Dictionary was founded around 1820. So you better be careful not to use it for any English words from the 1400s to 1700s.

Many of the crew of those years have discussed the terms as well.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
“False in one thing, false in everything,”

Kavanaugh had no difficulty lying under oath. And I remain amazed at the rah-rah team. Donald Trump was more honest, in at least telling us his surprise at how much Kavanaugh emphasized his enthusiasm for beer.

Even if Catherine Blasey Ford is an MKUltra plant who has an implant from the CIA creating false recovered memories, and has 1,000 weaknesses in the leftie and pro-abortion circus, and is a pervert played by Amy Schumer ..

Brett Kavanaugh would still be an unfit, tipsy liar who should not be supported for the Supremes by Christians of integrity.

=========

From Slate:

Kav even counter-asked the gal senator from MN whether she had blacked out from drinking.

My personal conjecture is that he prepared for the hearing with some brew or shot. Based paerly on his whiny drama queen stuff, his very fuzzy thinking, the belligerance, and contra-Judicial partisan approach.

SA - I respect your opinions, but I think you are off-base on what really is happening here.
Remember our Lord and Savior also drank and ate, so much so that he was called a glutton and a winebibber.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Kavanaugh has been accused of lying under oath.

If this can be proven to be true, he should immediately DISQUALIFIED!

The fact that there would be some that would even question this logical conclusion shows just how incredibly political this has become. It's not supposed to be like this.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

Kavanaugh has been accused of lying under oath.

If this can be proven to be true, he should immediately DISQUALIFIED!

The fact that there would be some that would even question this logical conclusion shows just how incredibly political this has become. It's not supposed to be like this.

Oh, you mean like Bill Clinton?

This is somewhat ironic, as he has been accused of rape, sexual assault, doctoring women's drinks so that they can be raped, gang-rape and who knows what else.

But, this lying under oath is much worse, I guess...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Webster’s Dictionary was founded around 1820. So you better be careful not to use it for any English words from the 1400s to 1700s.

Many of the crew of those years have discussed the terms as well.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
“False in one thing, false in everything,”

Kavanaugh had no difficulty lying under oath. And I remain amazed at the rah-rah team. Donald Trump was more honest, in at least telling us his surprise at how much Kavanaugh emphasized his enthusiasm for beer.

Even if Catherine Blasey Ford is an MKUltra plant who has an implant from the CIA creating false recovered memories, and has 1,000 weaknesses in the leftie and pro-abortion circus, and is a pervert played by Amy Schumer ..

Brett Kavanaugh would still be an unfit, tipsy liar who should not be supported for the Supremes by Christians of integrity.

=========

From Slate:

Kav even counter-asked the gal senator from MN whether she had blacked out from drinking.

My personal conjecture is that he prepared for the hearing with some brew or shot. Based paerly on his whiny drama queen stuff, his very fuzzy thinking, the belligerance, and contra-Judicial partisan approach.

"Every single word on here [Urban Dictionary] is written by someone with a point of view, with a personal experience of the word in the entry."[8]

This shows that the entries are relatively new on meaning.

I can’t take you as a serious poster when you continue to cite Left-Wing links.

I would also like to point out that now that the sexual allegations are falling apart, I notice you are on the drinking narrative along with the Democrats and the media.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

SA - I respect your opinions, but I think you are off-base on what really is happening here.
Remember our Lord and Savior also drank and ate, so much so that he was called a glutton and a winebibber.

The accusation was a gross exaggeration of what Jesus Christ was doing. If you really believe Jesus Christ was really given to being a glutton and an alcohol abuser, then you really have a problem!

The fact that you would even make the above statement in an effort to "win a discussion" is... crazy.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Oh, you mean like Bill Clinton?

This is somewhat ironic, as he has been accused of rape, sexual assault, doctoring women's drinks so that they can be raped, gang-rape and who knows what else.

But, this lying under oath is much worse, I guess...

There is a term for the argument type when people try to introduce an outside incident to try to minimize or justify the BLATANT WRONG directly in front of them.

I can't remember the term, but the fact that you have to resort to this tactic in order to defend appointing a man to the U.S. SUPREME COURT who is willing to lie under oath reflects just how INSANE some people have become.

It's all about politics now, not right and wrong, politics.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Urban Dictionary was founded in 1999.

Not to mention that UD relies on user votes to determine what a term means, not actual historical usage.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

There is a term for the argument type when people try to introduce an outside incident to try to minimize or justify the BLATANT WRONG directly in front of them.

I can't remember the term, but the fact that you have to resort to this tactic in order to defend appointing a man to the U.S. SUPREME COURT who is willing to lie under oath reflects just how INSANE some people have become.

It's all about politics now, not right and wrong, politics.

You have already convicted him, haven't you.
And it is not about politics.
This is a real battle against evil.
The Dems do not care about the accusations.
They were never going to vote for him, anyway.
They timed the release of the accusation in order to attempt to delay.
If they were serious about it, they would have turned it over to the committee in July.
Think about how ridiculous this is.

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

You have already convicted him, haven't you.
And it is not about politics.
This is a real battle against evil.
The Dems do not care about the accusations.
They were never going to vote for him, anyway.
They timed the release of the accusation in order to attempt to delay.
If they were serious about it, they would have turned it over to the committee in July.
Think about how ridiculous this is.

No, he's not on trial. I haven't convicted him. In fact, I believed he would be confirmed BUT if he has lied under oath, that should automatically disqualify him.

That's not being partisan. In fact, the true evil would be to knowingly appoint someone to the Supreme Court who has plainly proven themselves to be a liar-- if it turns out to be proven that he did lie under oath.

[Steven Avery]

Buckaroo - maybe red herring.