Tweet
Originally posted by jdshock
View Post
-
Blumenthal saying Kavanaugh lied is a laughing joke. You sticking up for gutless hypocrites is laughable. -
2. No, you didn't. Did he perjure himself?Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Well, we've got about 4 more days for the FBI to reveal the lying, raping, tally-whacker danglin' cheat for what he really is.
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/bre...ote-this-week/Last edited by ShockingButTrue; October 1, 2018, 06:22 PM.Comment
-
-
I have been a bit surprised the Democrats have not yet "located" and/or "incentivized" the person or persons who drove the accuser to the party or drove her home after the party and alleged assault/incident.
Perhaps that is the next last minute suprise that will magically be produced.Comment
-
I'm just putting this out there, and I know it's crazy, but hear me out.
Maybe, just maybe, Dr. Blasey Ford isn't a democratic plant and that's why they haven't located or incentivized someone else to come forward. -
And maybe, just maybe, she really did have only one beer too. I think you're on to something.
-
-
Supposedly they are. But what I think they should also be doing is an investigation of Blasey Ford and her background and history. Wouldn't an interview of her family members be appropriate.Originally posted by pinstripers View Post
Comment
-
This isn't a criminal investigation so there's no subpoena power. Ford can tell the FBI to **** off and I suspect that's exactly what she has done. In this alternate universe, an accuser can say whatever they want and then run and hide laughing while real people's lives are destroyed. It's too bizarre to even make up. It should be considered a form of terrorism.
T
...:cool:
-
-
The Democrats know more about the Kavanaugh accusers and their witnesses than the FBI and Senate combined. The reason the driver hasn't come forward is because the driver isn't "helpful".Originally posted by 1972Shocker View Post
T
...:cool:Comment
-
That bitter, vile, hateful, divisive, 'ol hag from Hawaii wants the FBI to investigate K's drinking habits. Ain't no "Crossfire Hurricane" here honey! Case closed.
Can you believe it? Oh, wait...Comment
-
Originally posted by jdshock View Post
Interesting post. I must admit, I had never heard of the phrase "devil's triangle" until today and I am really not glad I looked it up. I have heard of the phrase "boof" and it wasn't related to flatulence, but I am a few years younger than him. But what I find interesting is that I don't think it would be difficult to find someone, or actually multiple people, to dispute his definitions of those phrases while they are under oath. Given that they have found someone willing to say that he was drugging girls and present at parties where gang rapes were occurring I would think he would expect that they'll try to find someone to dispute anything he says that is remotely questionable. He has said several things, like being a virgin in HS and college, that if not true could fairly easily be refuted (kids talk about that stuff). This doesn't mean that he didn't lie about something, but I just find it very odd that he said so many things that at least I think could be easily refuted if they are not true.
Interesting stat of the day, I looked it up that about half of all high school students are virgins, so I would not be one of the "all" who would agree that he would probably be lying about that.
I must say one other thing...I would agree that judges typically don't yell and scream, but I'm trying to think of any other judge that was (not credibly) accused of being a gang rapist. To be fair though, Judge Kavanaugh didn't yell or scream either. I didn't watch all of the hearing, but I did listen to his entire opening statement and what must have been the most heated parts given that what I heard was played over and over, and no, he didn't yell and scream. He was angry and he made that clear, but you are exaggerating.
Comment
-
If half of all high school students are virgins, why do people think he is lying? It is just as likely he is telling the truth. Nobody has come forward to credibly dispute this, so I think it is much more likely this is a true statement. Like you said, it would be fairly easy for an ex-girlfriend to come forward if they knew this was a lie.Last edited by shockfan89_; October 2, 2018, 08:40 AM.
-
-
I’m also not familiar with Boof or devils triangle.
also of note, in the mid-80s the term “boner” was mike seavers best friends name. In such a situation, one could say in good faith, “did you see that boner on network TV last night?”Livin the dreamComment
-
-
Have we heard from Gangbang Greg(g?) yet?Comment
-
Not that this particular debate needs to be about these terms specifically, but this is not an argument that he is not lying. Kavanaugh is not saying he is not familiar with the terms. He is saying they mean something different than everyone who is familiar with the terms. Your unfamiliarity is irrelevant.Originally posted by pinstripers View PostComment
-
Just throwing this out as another data point. In the mid-80s we commonly used the term boof or boofed but it was used more like the term FUBAR. It wasn't that we were talking about literally doing what the term means, but more figuratively that someone or something was boofed.
I would also add that we said and wrote a lot of things (yes, even in the yearbook) that didn't actually happen, or were inside jokes that had a WAY different meaning than you might think.
The point is, the same words could have had different meanings to different groups of people. I find it odd to think a high school virgin was talking about a devil's triangle in a year book from the actual experience. More than likely they picked up the term from a smut magazine or porn video and adapted the term into their vocabulary thinking they sounded cool, possibly even renaming a drinking game to the devil's triangle so they could talk about it at school on Monday and people would think they actually did it.Last edited by shockfan89_; October 2, 2018, 08:37 AM. -
Some DAMN fine points shockfan89. It was VERY common as a high schooler to collect off-color sayings and then incorporate them into your own "tribal vernacular". A lot of the time they would end up having very different meanings from the origin or purposefully used at inappropriate times. I guess like everything, context is important. How you'll obtain context after 36 years beats me.
T
...:cool:
-
-
His definition is irrelevant to his lying. There’s a study that says 1 in 4 women claim to be raped. Are most of them lying, or are they using a definition that is counter to merriam-Webster?Originally posted by jdshock View Post
As to blacking out, that’s not something that can be spotted by a third party. Blacking our is something that is revealed by the individual after the fact. Additionally, blacking out doesn’t generally occur with beer...it occurs when people drink hard spirits.Livin the dreamComment
-
I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you agree with his definition of "boof" and "devil's triangle." I implore you to find a SINGLE reference to "devil's triangle" as a drinking game anywhere prior to this week. But sure, maybe you agree with his definitions. That's fine.
But, you cannot use the fact that you or pin or whoever is unaware of the definition as affirmative evidence that Kavanaugh is telling the truth, right? Like, the fact that you haven't heard either definition doesn't make his definition correct. It would be supportive evidence if he were saying "yeah, I dunno, I am not familiar with those terms." But you not being aware of the real definition does not mean we should prioritize one definition over the other. If 99% of people say to look for heroin track marks in hands and feet, and Kavanaugh says "I didn't do heroin because the track marks would appear in my forehead..." it wouldn't be persuasive if people on this board came on and said "yeah, I'd check the forehead because I certainly wouldn't know where to look for track marks."
The fact of the matter is that we have terms that a lot of people don't know what they mean. Of the people who do know what they mean, I have yet to hear a single person back up Kavanaugh's definitions.
Again, I regret to make this about his lying about boofing and devil's triangle since I think there are certainly other lies with hard proof. The entire point of my first post on the subject was "I think we should all be able to agree he's probably lying about these points, but it would be incredibly hard to prove."
-
-
I don’t agree he was lying. I’m not saying he wasn’t, but I think an inside joke, in which he and his friends had their own definitionin the 80s, is just as likely as a lie. I can’t make the leap.
i also disagree with the “lies” he told during testimony, at least from a perjury perspective; for instance, he stated he wasn’t directly involved in the appointment of whatever judge was up for appointment. Well, there was a group of judges that was assigned responsibility for this and he wasn’t one of them. His being asked his opinion on the matter does not directly involve him.
Here’s the problem; the Dems were never going to vote for him. Since they can’t stop him with votes, they are using slander and delay tactics to rid of him. If this was a situation where they were marginally on board, then we as a nation could have a good faith argument about what is required of the SCOTUS.Last edited by wufan; October 2, 2018, 08:41 AM.Livin the dreamComment
-
Both of those articles do a good job explaining why it's not perjury. Which I said, and I'm quoting, "a defense attorney would get him out of perjury charges without a doubt." But they do nothing to combat the idea that he was not entirely truthful.
I especially love that the National Review article is written by Ed Whelan. Ed Whelan is the guy who put forth that absolutely dangerous theory of the doppelganger, and he listed the address and floorplans for that other guy's childhood home. The craziest part about the whole thing is that he had looked at Dr. Blasey Ford's linkedin PRIOR to her name being public. There was a time period when the Washington Post had asked the White House for comment prior to the actual publication. During that window, Whelan looked at her linkedin page. Guess someone from the White House or Kavanaugh's group asked him to start spreading the word.
Ultimately, we've got a guy who is not going to be found guilty of perjury. He has repeatedly said things that should be hard for us to believe. He was seriously involved in the Pryor nomination, and he said it wasn't one he handled. He received emails that said "spying" as the subject line and it came from a "mole" and he thought it was friendly information being shared across the aisle. He claims to have invented new meanings for words that the rest of us all agree on the meaning of. He claims to have never blacked out, passed out, or failed to remember anything due to drinking despite telling us he "likes beer" about 15 times during his confirmation hearing. Now, the newest information that is coming out, is that he said he hadn't heard Ramirez's accusations until the New Yorker article came out, but the FBI has text messages saying his group was asking around and looking for rebuttal witnesses prior to publication of the article. You have to do serious mental gymnastics to come to his defense on ALL of these. -
And I meant "probably" as in "more likely than not." I was naive I guess. I still don't understand how it could reasonably be "just as likely" that he invented two phrases, phrases that are either a completely meaningless collection of sounds (boof) or a nonsensical combination (devil's triangle). Phrases that have specific and clear meanings to a huge number of people. And he has invented the exact same phrases, but he suggests (for literally the first time in the history of our language, as far as I can tell) that they mean something other than what everyone else says they are. I was naive to think it's reasonable to conclude he is "more likely than not" lying about those meanings.
And in totality, we have incident after incident after incident where you just have to bend over backwards to say "well, yeah maybe he squeaked out the truth there a little bit." But this was the point of my original post. We have lots of things that it seems to me he's probably lying about. He has these other things that he was not truthful about and we have the evidence for it. Yet people are still coming to his defense.
None of it matters.
-
-
We can not all agree on that fact. I know I have not known what a term has meant, use the term and latter learned what it actually meant. I bet all of has had that experience. My mom tells the story about thinking knockers meant knees and yelling out in gym class "Knockers up ladies". Are you saying she is lying because everyone knows knockers mean boobs? I bet before this more people knew knockers then knew boof or devil's triangle.
This was a time before you could google those words. Is it possible he is lying? Yes. Is it a fact that he is lying? No.Comment
-
Very true about Google. There's a good chance that many slang words (prior to the Internet) had thousands of definitions. You certainly couldn't have looked up boof in the dictionary back in the 80's. Since it seems to have an anal origin, it wouldn't be an impossible stretch for a bunch of kids to adapt it to mean farting.
"PJ got boofed last night" PJ then turns to his buddy and lifts his leg while breaking wind and saying, "Booof this". It really can start that easy.
I will say something else; even in 2018, heterosexual people don't openly/comfortably talk about anal sex. Sure guys will talk about it over beers - talk about who they've done it with. But to put something like that down on paper? 35 years ago? Uhhhhh no.
T
...:cool: -
I remember when a 'catfish' was a 'catfish', a 'cloud' was a 'cloud', a 'friend' was a 'friend' and 'cutting the cheese' was 'cutting the cheese'... damn, I'm getting old.
https://media.giphy.com/media/Jq02U80IQtHqM/giphy.gif
-
Comment