Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

End of #metoo

Options
1…457910…17

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Absolute gimp in that video 13mins in...........


    mat.png


    Bad enough young Irish girls carrying placards with that written on it but for a young man in western society to wear a t-shirt with that emblazoned on it shows the effect that the poison spewed by the radical feminists over recent years has had.
    That shirt is disgusting.
    I cannot comment what I would like to about the wearer, as I do not wish to receive moderation.


  • Options
    #183
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    He also perjured himself several times. That should be disqualification enough.

    Has he? Examples please.


  • Options
    #184
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    And this is the problem here.
    He (Kavanaugh) has not been found guilty of anything. The hearing is just that, it is not a trial and no matter what happens he will not be convicted of anything by the time the senate vote happens.
    In the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, and the fact that this "allegation" is timed to be released just before the GOP are slated to lose the senate in the mid terms is very suspicious.


    The "allegation" is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and quite frankly from reading the testimony from both parties, farcical to associate Kavanaugh with.


    I understand the need to provide support to genuine rape/assault victims but you cannot label a man as a rapist based solely on an allegation. If that was the case then this could happen to anyone, career and life ruined on a spurious vague allegation.


    You're right, he wasn't on trial. It was a job interview. One he failed spectacularly. Not only through his belligerence and evasiveness but also his several perjuries. He is not fit to sit on the supreme court.


  • Options
    #185
    Southwest Alaska
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 17 ✭Southwest Alaska


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Do you think it possible that you are not very good at detecting sarcasm? But just make sure you understand, there is plenty of research that points out rape (and other sexual crimes) are about power, control, abuse not about desire. I'm too lazy to post links on the phone but Google is your friend if you don't believe me. If you think that's comparable to promotion I really don't know what to say.

    I think it's possible you can't follow sound logical reaesining so deflect with so called sarcasm.

    I believe it is a generalisation to say rape is about power, in some cases maybe, in some cases maybe not.

    Why should a crime be treated as more severe if it is motivated by power?


  • Options
    #186
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with you except the last sentence. Kavanaugh isn't fit to be a supreme court judge whether this incident actually happened or not. I think his loss of composure made him more credible. I'd be f**king angry if I was accused wrongly of something like this too, not calm and collected.
    +1
    I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.


    Kavanaugh is a great judge and will make a great member of the SCOTUS.
    This will (assuming he is - as the numbers look like - nominated and confirmed) be a great fillip for the Trump presidency. A lot of evangelicals voted Trump based solely on the SC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You're right, he wasn't on trial. It was a job interview. One he failed spectacularly. Not only through his belligerence and evasiveness but also his several perjuries. He is not fit to sit on the supreme court.
    I'd be angrier and less composed than he was if I was falsely accused of something too.



    It's not a "job interview" as no interview process exists for the SCOTUS, you're nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by congress.


  • Options
    #188
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    Has he? Examples please.
    I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI


  • Options
    #189
    BBFAN
    Registered Users Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭BBFAN


    ELM327 wrote: »
    And we already have this, when uneducated mobs ignore the decision of the courts (see the rugby players recently, they were found not guilty but the angry mob already had them convicted on social media and despite the not guilty verdict they were still shamed out of their jobs).

    Tbf they were shamed out of their jobs because they were general scumbags, whether guilty or not.


  • Options
    #190
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    Has he? Examples please.


    2 examples here.
    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

    There are more. He was also asked if he had watched Dr Fords testimony. he replied he hadn't. He had.


  • Options
    #191
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI


    You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    2 examples here.
    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

    There are more. He was also asked if he had watched Dr Fords testimony. he replied he hadn't. He had.
    Those are basing his "perjury" on the opinions of one or two others, and a definition from Urban Dictionary.


    Hardly what they teach you in Harvard as constituting evidence!


  • Options
    #193
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ELM327 wrote: »
    +1
    I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.


    Kavanaugh is a great judge and will make a great member of the SCOTUS.
    This will (assuming he is - as the numbers look like - nominated and confirmed) be a great fillip for the Trump presidency. A lot of evangelicals voted Trump based solely on the SC.

    I know absolutely nothing about the background. I watched both testimonies and Kavanaugh came across as a massive nerd who wouldn't know what to do with a woman, and Ford came across as someone who believes she was genuinely sexually assaulted by him. I can't decide who is telling the truth or who is lying. So the only thing left is the evidence, which there is zero.

    Kavanaugh has already been investigated by the FBI 7 times in his career as part of the vetting process for various positions he has held. If they haven't found anything by now they never will.

    Of course we have the same trial by media here but in our case we make innocent scouts suffer for it : https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/scouting-ireland-funding-suspended-until-board-replaced-zappone-announces-1.3643676


  • Options
    #194
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with you except the last sentence. Kavanaugh isn't fit to be a supreme court judge whether this incident actually happened or not. I think his loss of composure made him more credible. I'd be f**king angry if I was accused wrongly of something like this too, not calm and collected.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    +1
    I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.

    A lot of the poor temperament claims stem from his reactions to such skillfull questioning as: "do you like beer?" "Have you ever been drunk in college?".

    A lot of those questions are nothing more than character assasination, and had no place in such a hearing.
    I'd be pissed, and flipping tables, not just making sarcastic comments.


    That said, it was Antonin Scalia that said in one of his interviews that a majority of the time in the Supreme Court is spent with boring **** like copyright and tax law.

    If repetition in questions is going to exasperate you, then maybe the Supreme Court isn't for him.


  • Options
    #195
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Those are basing his "perjury" on the opinions of one or two others, and a definition from Urban Dictionary.


    Hardly what they teach you in Harvard as constituting evidence!


    He was under oath. He is expected to tell the truth. He didn't.


  • Options
    #196
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.
    Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.


  • Options
    #197
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    He was under oath. He is expected to tell the truth. He didn't.


    How do you know he is not telling the truth? Conclusively now, not just because you want to believe Ford without any evidence


  • Options
    #198
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.


    LOL. Criticises me for name calling by doing exactly that.


  • Options
    #199
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    How do you know he is not telling the truth? Conclusively now, not just because you want to believe Ford without any evidence


    None of the questions i mentioned were directly to do with ford.


  • Options
    #200
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    LOL. Criticises me for name calling by doing exactly that.
    That's funny, there's about the same evidence of name calling in my post as there is against Kavanaugh... NONE.


    point to any name calling here:


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.


  • Options
    #201
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    None of the questions i mentioned were directly to do with ford.
    Are you posting on behalf of Ford? You're doing a great job of dodging direct questions.


    Do you like beer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    He was under oath. He is expected to tell the truth. He didn't.

    According to these guys he did. Or at least he didn't bend the truth enough to be counted as perjury.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/17829320/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing-perjury


  • Options
    #203
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    2 examples here.
    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

    There are more. He was also asked if he had watched Dr Fords testimony. he replied he hadn't. He had.

    Hmmmm. By Irish standards I bet he was practically teetotal in college.

    "Boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" I've never heard of either of those terms. However it does seem to mean anal sex and a threesome respectively. He shouldn't have lied about it in that case, and yes I would say he perjured himself. If so he is an idiot .... as teenage boys talk about sex constantly. Actually having sex constantly is a different matter.


  • Options
    #204
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    Hmmmm. By Irish standards I bet he was practically teetotal in college.

    "Boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" I've never heard of either of those terms. However it does seem to mean anal sex and a threesome respectively. He shouldn't have lied about it in that case, and yes I would say he perjured himself. If so he is an idiot .... as teenage boys talk about sex constantly. Actually having sex constantly is a different matter.
    Plus, what difference does one's sexual practices make to a rape allegation?
    I've been to some nefarious clubs in the past and you meet all sorts, lawyers, solicitors, doctors, judges. Sexual deviance does not make you a rapist. It could be argued that it would make you less likely to be a rapist as you would be more aware of how important consent is.


  • Options
    #205
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That's funny, there's about the same evidence of name calling in my post as there is against Kavanaugh... NONE.


    point to any name calling here:


    Meh, you're not worth the effort.


  • Options
    #206
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    Hmmmm. By Irish standards I bet he was practically teetotal in college.

    "Boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" I've never heard of either of those terms. However it does seem to mean anal sex and a threesome respectively. He shouldn't have lied about it in that case, and yes I would say he perjured himself. If so he is an idiot .... as teenage boys talk about sex constantly. Actually having sex constantly is a different matter.


    well then why lie about it?


  • Options
    #207
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Meh, you're not worth the effort.
    So no name calling.
    Gotcha.


    Now if only the Dems and Ford would go away that easily when they were demonstrably shown to be factually lacking


  • Options
    #208
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well then why lie about it?

    Drinking too much is very subjective. For some it's 2 G & Ts. For others it's 10 pints and a few whiskey chasers. The other stuff is more credible.


  • Options
    #209
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    professore wrote: »
    Drinking too much is very subjective. For some it's 2 G & Ts. For others it's 10 pints and a few whiskey chasers. The other stuff is more credible.
    And what does drinking have to do with being on the SCOTUS anyway. nothing.
    It's irrelevant bluster by the democrats as they know they may win the senate at the mid terms, so the GOP need to get this nomination in now.


  • Options
    #210
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Plus, what difference does one's sexual practices make to a rape allegation?
    I've been to some nefarious clubs in the past and you meet all sorts, lawyers, solicitors, doctors, judges. Sexual deviance does not make you a rapist. It could be argued that it would make you less likely to be a rapist as you would be more aware of how important consent is.

    Lying about the meanings of words is the problem. I agree the whole probing into his drinking habits was bat**** crazy stuff. He should have been brutally honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,153 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    Drinking too much is very subjective. For some it's 2 G & Ts. For others it's 10 pints and a few whiskey chasers. The other stuff is more credible.


    when a dozen people from your class call you out then you have not been entirely truthful. He is interviewing to be a supreme court justice. a job he will hold for life and cannot be removed from. Total honesty is to be expected.


Advertisement