Ric Flair Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: We haven't been talking about Swetnick. Are you Actually, those were the allegations that Big Red Buster was quoting me on. That’s how it came up. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 30 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Actually, those were the allegations that Big Red Buster was quoting me on. That’s how it came up. Actually, the vast majority of this thread and all testimony in the Senate have been about ford. The specific quote I quoted to start this conversation was when you amended a post that talked about accusations towards both Kavanaugh and Thomas. So.....possibly you could slide a little bit of Swetnick in on this....but, the vast majority of discussion was about Ford and Anita Hill. Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Actually, the vast majority of this thread and all testimony in the Senate have been about ford. The specific quote I quoted to start this conversation was when you amended a post that talked about accusations towards both Kavanaugh and Thomas. So.....possibly you could slide a little bit of Swetnick in on this....but, the vast majority of discussion was about Ford and Anita Hill. I've been pretty clear throughout that Ford seems sincere but mistaken, Ramirez seems horribly confused and just wrong, and Swetnick seems quite deranged. They're all wrong, but in my opinion, for different reasons. 1 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: I've been pretty clear throughout that Ford seems sincere but mistaken, Ramirez seems horribly confused and just wrong, and Swetnick seems quite deranged. They're all wrong, but in my opinion, for different reasons. But swetnick isn’t the only accuser the post you quoted was talking about. In fact kavenagh isn’t even the only justice it talked about. However, when questioned about it, you narrowed it all down to just this one woman. Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: But swetnick isn’t the only accuser the post you quoted was talking about. In fact kavenagh isn’t even the only justice it talked about. However, when questioned about it, you narrowed it all down to just this one woman. I made clear what my issues are with each of the accusers. Next. 1 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Author Share Posted October 9, 2018 17 hours ago, knapplc said: You're saying we shouldn't have looked into the accusation? I'm confused. If a woman claims a man assaulted her, what is supposed to happen in this due process world you're talking about? And how does that differ from what happened with Kavanaugh? No - that isn't what I'm saying. The 'case' should not be tried in the court of public opinion first as it was. This type of accusation should have been handled behind closed doors. The way it was handled was to enrage public emotion before the facts were looked at. The committee offered to do so privately but it is obviously clear that this was not the intent of the Dem side of the committee. If verified and if criminal charges were to be filed, then the committee would refer their evidence to the proper agency to take appropriate action. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, TGHusker said: No - that isn't what I'm saying. The 'case' should not be tried in the court of public opinion first as it was. This type of accusation should have been handled behind closed doors. The way it was handled was to enrage public emotion before the facts were looked at. The committee offered to do so privately but it is obviously clear that this was not the intent of the Dem side of the committee. If verified and if criminal charges were to be filed, then the committee would refer their evidence to the proper agency to take appropriate action. Have you thought this through? The GOP would not have looked into it or interviewed either of them if it was all done behind closed doors. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 5 minutes ago, TGHusker said: No - that isn't what I'm saying. The 'case' should not be tried in the court of public opinion first as it was. This type of accusation should have been handled behind closed doors. The way it was handled was to enrage public emotion before the facts were looked at. The committee offered to do so privately but it is obviously clear that this was not the intent of the Dem side of the committee. If verified and if criminal charges were to be filed, then the committee would refer their evidence to the proper agency to take appropriate action. That's confusing, because you're talking about Kavanaugh being denied due process, which is a legal term. He wasn't denied due process. In fact, it went through its course, he was confirmed, and has been sworn in. So I'm not sure what that line of reasoning was about at all. If you're decrying the public nature of the thing... that's transparent politics. If you're decrying the rancor, that's something you should be equally upset with Kavanaugh about as well as the process and the players involved. Kavanaugh disqualified himself for a seat on the Supreme Court with that emotional outburst. And yet, there he sits. Hard to complain if you're him. 2 Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Just so we are clear. Someone that is being nominated and scrutinized for A PUBLIC LIFETIME APPOINTMENT should never have anything investigated behind closed doors. 2 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 9, 2018 Author Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Have you thought this through? The GOP would not have looked into it or interviewed either of them if it was all done behind closed doors. So tell me the proper balance - when both parties have their agendas and you have the rights of the accused and the accuser to consider. I'm open to hearing how you think the best way this should be handled. Right or wrong, Kav is on the court. My concern going forward is to avoid this type of circus again. And yes, as Knapp just said above it is 'big boy' politics and it can be messy at best. But I'm not sure justice is the winner in the end. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, TGHusker said: So tell me the proper balance - when both parties have their agendas and you have the rights of the accused and the accuser to consider. I'm open to hearing how you think the best way this should be handled. Right or wrong, Kav is on the court. My concern going forward is to avoid this type of circus again. And yes, as Knapp just said above it is 'big boy' politics and it can be messy at best. But I'm not sure justice is the winner in the end. It definitely wasn't in this case. A guy perjured his way to the Supreme Court bench. Pretty impressive victory over justice there. 4 Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: So tell me the proper balance - when both parties have their agendas and you have the rights of the accused and the accuser to consider. I'm open to hearing how you think the best way this should be handled. Right or wrong, Kav is on the court. My concern going forward is to avoid this type of circus again. And yes, as Knapp just said above it is 'big boy' politics and it can be messy at best. But I'm not sure justice is the winner in the end. Nominate someone without controversy. See Goursich. Let's not forget that this whole thing was shady from the start. Kennedy only stepped down once he knew Trump would nominate Kav, and there are suspicious connection between Trump and Kennedy's son as a banker. 1 Link to comment
Ric Flair Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, ZRod said: Nominate someone without controversy. See Goursich. Pretty easy to create a controversy. Just find some people with mental issues and get them to make crazy allegations of sexual assault. The precedent has now been set. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Pretty easy to create a controversy. Just find some people with mental issues and get them to make crazy allegations of sexual assault. The precedent has now been set. Trump's propaganda at work again. You're basically accusing Ford of lying under oath. I thought our dear leader proclaimed last night that EVERYONE should be presumed innocent till proven guilty. except the central park 5, Clintons, Obama, Mexicans.......... 1 1 Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Pretty easy to create a controversy. Just find some people with mental issues and get them to make crazy allegations of sexual assault. The precedent has now been set. Then why wasn't that done for Gorsich, professor? Link to comment
Recommended Posts