The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil

Truly evil is a moral judgement, but I can go with it.

Judge K is like the perfect choir boy. No sex until marriage ( or maybe the "serious" g/f stage).
He was captain of the basketball team.
A serious student -not a partier
Lifetime friendships with women he knew and wrote the 65 supporting letter

He's like Dudley Do-right..but the Dems
( who are controlling the Ford affair -Brian Fallon is running the show- Deborah Katz is the atty)
don't give a shit. they gladly practice the politics of personal destruction

So all the macho rhetoric regarding Georgetown prep was just innocent fun? He was a preppie, one of those that think he hit a triple cause he was born of third base. And anyone who feels the need to tell the world he was a virgin most of his youth is just weird, strangely weird

His past shows he was heavily politically partisan with no attempt to project an objective image

And none of that disqualifies a him, but to portray him now as a martyr and simply dismiss the women's accusations as attempts to smear him as if he was Jefferson Smith is inane
 
Hello anatta,

Anatta: "Testimony is not evidence."

Me: "Sworn testimony IS evidence!" (provides supporting link)

Anatta: (avoiding the truth)
we'll get it in front of the SJC.
Witnesses do not swear when the interview for the FBI

Doesn't matter. It is still evidence. You won't admit it, so you're only fooling yourself.

Is that how Republicans continue to support such sleazeballs? By fooling themselves?

Telling themselves things which are not true?

The problem with our Republican friends is not that they know so much. It is that so much of what they know is simply NOT TRUE!
 
Awwww! Awww! Awwww! Poor little sensitive Republicans can't handle a little taste of their own medicine!!! Awwwww!!! You poor babies! LOL LOL LOL

By the way, shouldn't we put a hold on a vote for Kavanaugh until after the midterm so the people can have their say? LOL LOL LOL

I'll give you credit Anatta...you have a great big set of balls to create such a hypocritical thread. Thanks for the laugh! :)

You've forgotten how the Dems (Biden, Schumer, et al) have manipulated their own way into SC selections in the past 30 years.
 
Hello Mott,

Oh no he was just denied an up and down vote for partisan political reasons using every parliamentary trick in the book. You're beyond niave as hell if you don't expect a political payback. Also, the GOP has written the book on smearing political opponents so spare me the cry babying and answer my question...shouldn't we post pone the vote on Kavanaugh till after the midterm to let the people have their say? :) LOL LOL LOL

Sounds like exactly what the Republicans said when they refused to vote on Garland.

Hypocrite: n. (see Republican) Somebody who maintains a double standard to support their own greedy agenda. ie: Somebody who screws the American people to get rich.
 
You've forgotten how the Dems (Biden, Schumer, et al) have manipulated their own way into SC selections in the past 30 years.

How is that possible, "Dems have manipulated their way into the SC," when we've had nine Justices appointed by a Republican President and four by a Democrat President since the offset of the Reagan Administration?

And if you are referring to the supposed Biden rule, it never was anything but a phrase Biden said in a speech and the GOP cherry picked to,employ against Garland. There wasn't even an opening on the Court when Biden said it, it never became anyone's polocy, nor was it ever even taken serious by even his fellow Democrats
 
Dems? I'm registered Dem out of old habit and too lazy to change.
True enough I never left the Dems -but they sure as hell have left me ( Blue dog Dem)
I’m still waiting for your proof that Ford recovered her memory in therapy, thanks
 
Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench are parts of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.

But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane.

President Donald Trump, who was elected by people who cared deeply about fighting the progressive takeover of the courts, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat. D.C. establishment figures on the right revere Kavanaugh, and praise his extensive judicial record. Before meeting with him or holding hearings, most Democratic senators said they planned to vote against him.

The hearings ricocheted from interesting discussions of judicial philosophy to clownish “I am Spartacus” moments and radical abortion protesters screaming about their love of killing unborn children.

Only upon completion did Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein release news that she’d sat on a claim of sexual assault for six weeks. The media then began running with uncorroborated and disputed allegations ranging from Christine Blasey Ford saying she thought Kavanaugh was trying to rape her and might kill her to Avenatti suggesting that Kavanaugh is a gang raper.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — in part thanks to Sen. Jeff Flake, cowering in the face of a smear campaign — bent over backwards to accommodate the first accuser, no matter how outlandish her requests to delay the hearing. As was easily predictable, the media and other resistance members put forth additional claims — somehow even less substantiated than the initial one — as the days passed.

Kavanaugh isn’t facing criminal prosecution in part because his accusers have come nowhere near the standard required for criminal prosecution.
And senators predisposed to vote against him are not the definition of an impartial jury.
That does not mean disputed allegations should form the basis of destroying a man’s life, career, and reputation. It also does not mean that a precedent should be established of allowing the left to weaponize use of disputed allegations to thwart the seating of justices.

some in the media are running multiple stories based on reputation-destroying allegations that have not come close to meeting a journalistic standard.

The New Yorker’s laughably disreputable Jane Mayer and previously well-regarded Ronan Farrow wrote up a story claiming that a progressive activist recovered a memory of sexual assault only after being prodded by Senate Democrats to do so.
Even The New York Times — which doesn’t have a sterling track record when it comes to running with wild accusations — interviewed dozens of people in an attempt to corroborate the allegation and was not able to do so. They found that the accuser Deborah Ramirez had recently told classmates she could not be certain Kavanaugh was the man who she says exposed himself to her.

Are Our Senators All Children?

Democratic senators announced at the outset of the Kavanaugh nomination that they would do what it took to stop him. They have held to their word, believing that any means necessary is morally defensible.

Republican senators, however, seem to lack the discernment to understand when they’re getting played by people who hate them and want them destroyed.

It’s not just that they’re losing a political battle, but that they’re allowing Democrats and the media to destroy a man and his family for political gain. There is no virtue in allowing a man to be smeared without evidence.

At some point one must consider whether evil means are justified for progressive ends. The bottom line is that this media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply can’t be the standard by which we destroy people. Watching this miscarriage of justice is radicalizing those who care about rule of law and political processes that have a semblance of sanity.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/the-smear-campaign-against-brett-kavanaugh-is-truly-evil/

Evil is more present than ever. At least in the obvious sense. Good is now bad, right is now wrong and evil has become righteous. Over the past 10 years people have become more emboldened to behave as ugly as possible filled with resentment, bitterness and self-consumed with having a victim status of some kind with full displacement of blame on anyone and anything except their own doorstep. More people are concerned with the sins of others rather quiet introspection of their own sins, faults and shortcomings. Jealously, covetousness and rage over what material things others have rather than contentment with themselves and finding peace within their own lives. And, it will get darker in this world. For those with peace, hang on to it tightly, keep your eyes on God and don't look to this present world to satisfy your needs and desires.
 
Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate
Lacking worthy menaces to fight, it is driven to find a replacement for racism. Failing this, what is left?
By Shelby Steele
Sept. 23, 2018 1:19 p.m. ET

Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.

For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.


How did the American left—conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world—become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.

The genius of the left in the ’60s was simply to perceive the new moral imperative, and then to identify itself with it. Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its immoral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge of America’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.

This bestowed enormous political and cultural power on the American left, and led to the greatest array of government-sponsored social programs in history—at an expense, by some estimates, of more than $22 trillion. But for the left to wield this power, there had to be a great menace to fight against—a tenacious menace that kept America uncertain of its legitimacy, afraid for its good name.

This amounted to a formula for power: The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left. And the ’60s handed the left a laundry list of menaces to be defeated. If racism was necessarily at the top of the list, it was quickly followed by a litany of bigotries ending in “ism” and “phobia.”

The left had important achievements. It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy. It also established the great menace of racism as America’s most intolerable disgrace. But the left’s success has plunged it into its greatest crisis since the ’60s. The Achilles’ heel of the left has been its dependence on menace for power. Think of all the things it can ask for in the name of fighting menaces like “systemic racism” and “structural inequality.” But what happens when the evils that menace us begin to fade, and then keep fading?

It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ’60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today—the source of its angst and hatefulness—is its own encroaching obsolescence. Today the left looks to be slowly dying from lack of racial menace.

A single white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Mo., four years ago resulted in a prolonged media blitz and the involvement of the president of the United States. In that same four-year period, thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.

White-on-black shootings evoke America’s history of racism and so carry an iconic payload of menace. Black-on-black shootings carry no such payload, although they are truly menacing to the black community. They evoke only despair. And the left gets power from fighting white evil, not black despair.

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.

Yet the left is still stalked by obsolescence. There is simply not enough menace to service its demands for power. The voices that speak for the left have never been less convincing. It is hard for people to see the menace that drives millionaire football players to kneel before the flag. And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.

For the American left today, the indulgence in hate is a death rattle.


Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-left-is-consumed-with-hate-1537723198

Shelby_Steele__www_bigpicweblog_com_.jpg


Shelby Steele is an American conservative author, columnist, documentary film maker, and a Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action.
 
i do like that we are up to gang rape now. In the space of like a week we went from normal guy to attempted rape to gang rapist lol.

The next thing is - someone's going to come along and claim they heard he was into murder and sex trafficking young girls, not they'll have any evidence;; but hey, what does that m matter.

:facepalm:
 
Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate
Lacking worthy menaces to fight, it is driven to find a replacement for racism. Failing this, what is left?
By Shelby Steele
Sept. 23, 2018 1:19 p.m. ET

Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.

For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.


How did the American left—conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world—become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.

The genius of the left in the ’60s was simply to perceive the new moral imperative, and then to identify itself with it. Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its immoral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge of America’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.

This bestowed enormous political and cultural power on the American left, and led to the greatest array of government-sponsored social programs in history—at an expense, by some estimates, of more than $22 trillion. But for the left to wield this power, there had to be a great menace to fight against—a tenacious menace that kept America uncertain of its legitimacy, afraid for its good name.

This amounted to a formula for power: The greater the menace to the nation’s moral legitimacy, the more power redounded to the left. And the ’60s handed the left a laundry list of menaces to be defeated. If racism was necessarily at the top of the list, it was quickly followed by a litany of bigotries ending in “ism” and “phobia.”

The left had important achievements. It did rescue America from an unsustainable moral illegitimacy. It also established the great menace of racism as America’s most intolerable disgrace. But the left’s success has plunged it into its greatest crisis since the ’60s. The Achilles’ heel of the left has been its dependence on menace for power. Think of all the things it can ask for in the name of fighting menaces like “systemic racism” and “structural inequality.” But what happens when the evils that menace us begin to fade, and then keep fading?

It is undeniable that America has achieved since the ’60s one of the greatest moral evolutions ever. That is a profound problem for the left, whose existence is threatened by the diminishment of racial oppression. The left’s unspoken terror is that racism is no longer menacing enough to support its own power. The great crisis for the left today—the source of its angst and hatefulness—is its own encroaching obsolescence. Today the left looks to be slowly dying from lack of racial menace.

A single white-on-black shooting in Ferguson, Mo., four years ago resulted in a prolonged media blitz and the involvement of the president of the United States. In that same four-year period, thousands of black-on-black shootings took place in Chicago, hometown of the then-president, yet they inspired very little media coverage and no serious presidential commentary.

White-on-black shootings evoke America’s history of racism and so carry an iconic payload of menace. Black-on-black shootings carry no such payload, although they are truly menacing to the black community. They evoke only despair. And the left gets power from fighting white evil, not black despair.

Today’s left lacks worthy menaces to fight. It is driven to find a replacement for racism, some sweeping historical wrongdoing that morally empowers those who oppose it. (Climate change?) Failing this, only hatred is left.

Hatred is a transformative power. It can make the innocuous into the menacing. So it has become a weapon of choice. The left has used hate to transform President Trump into a symbol of the new racism, not a flawed president but a systemic evil. And he must be opposed as one opposes racism, with a scorched-earth absolutism.

For Martin Luther King Jr., hatred was not necessary as a means to power. The actual details of oppression were enough. Power came to him because he rejected hate as a method of resisting menace. He called on blacks not to be defined by what menaced them. Today, because menace provides moral empowerment, blacks and their ostensible allies indulge in it. The menace of black victimization becomes the unarguable truth of the black identity. And here we are again, forever victims.

Yet the left is still stalked by obsolescence. There is simply not enough menace to service its demands for power. The voices that speak for the left have never been less convincing. It is hard for people to see the menace that drives millionaire football players to kneel before the flag. And then there is the failure of virtually every program the left has ever espoused—welfare, public housing, school busing, affirmative action, diversity programs, and so on.

For the American left today, the indulgence in hate is a death rattle.


Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-left-is-consumed-with-hate-1537723198

Shelby_Steele__www_bigpicweblog_com_.jpg


Shelby Steele is an American conservative author, columnist, documentary film maker, and a Robert J. and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He specializes in the study of race relations, multiculturalism, and affirmative action.

Talk about bullshit, got to love implying that climate change is now the new cause to replace racism, and hating is the supposed means to success. Generalizations of a conservative pseudo intellectual
 
Awwww! Awww! Awwww! Poor little sensitive Republicans can't handle a little taste of their own medicine!!! Awwwww!!! You poor babies! LOL LOL LOL

By the way, shouldn't we put a hold on a vote for Kavanaugh until after the midterm so the people can have their say? LOL LOL LOL

I'll give you credit Anatta...you have a great big set of balls to create such a hypocritical thread. Thanks for the laugh! :)
- VENGENCE

FTFY
 
I don't know if it's neccessary and the partisanship is going to far and it's affecting good governance. On the political front though pay backs are a mother fucker and listening to right wing partisans piss their panties over Kavanaugh's treatment is fucking hillarious.

What did they expect after Garland? Dems to just roll over? Fucking morons. LOL :)
- VENGENCE

FTFY
 
Back
Top