Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Yeah I think I might just let you and FSD keep each other busy ITT. My goodness.
92



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I have a new favorite type of meme
93
Essentially Flyertalk / Re: San Francisco things
« Last post by michigancat on September 24, 2018, 05:00:57 PM »

I actually drove past a sideshow in East Oakland at like 9 on a Saturday night this summer :lol:

also sidewshows infuriate white people :lol:
94
Essentially Flyertalk / Re: San Francisco things
« Last post by michigancat on September 24, 2018, 05:00:16 PM »

I actually drove past a sideshow in East Oakland at like 9 on a Saturday night this summer :lol:
95
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: Kavanaugh hearing. Ugly bad optics for Democrats
« Last post by sys on September 24, 2018, 04:53:21 PM »
I'm a bit confused by this because it's equating a 30+ year old memory of something with a 30+ year old non-memory of something.  Of course Kav could not remember details from that long ago because he was drunk.  He also may just not have retained that information for any number of reasons.  But if you're acting like that is an argument against his credibility, I don't get it.  No matter what his reason for not remembering (drunk, head trauma, or the event never actually occurred), the denial would still be credible absent evidence to the contrary.  That's why anyone who actually cares about discerning the truth here is going to be focused on the account of the person who alleges the event occurred.

the probability of a person's 30 year old memory being roughly accurate, while far from 100%, is much greater than the probability that any specific event from 30 years ago would be retained in memory.  therefore, assuming neither party is lying, the person asserting the memory is more likely to be rendering an accurate recounting than the person asserting that because they do not recall the event, it didn't occur.


I never said anything about the high legal burden to prove perjury.  I said if it takes a complicated explanation to explain how someone was lying, you've got a weak case for it.

even odder then, since the explanation for multiple cases is that he said x and x isn't true.


no, I don't think there is anything unjust about it.

i don't think this requires anything more.
96
if you're asking why i don't believe that you are impartial it's because as soon as a woman discusses her memories of kav, you're all "actually, false memories are surprisingly common, ..."  but you've not mentioned so much as a caveat as to the likelihood that a perpetually drunk man would recall any of his specific drunken escapades 30 years later and what that suggests regarding the credibility of kav's denials.

I'm a bit confused by this because it's equating a 30+ year old memory of something with a 30+ year old non-memory of something.  Of course Kav could not remember details from that long ago because he was drunk.  He also may just not have retained that information for any number of reasons.  But if you're acting like that is an argument against his credibility, I don't get it.  No matter what his reason for not remembering (drunk, head trauma, or the event never actually occurred), the denial would still be credible absent evidence to the contrary.  That's why anyone who actually cares about discerning the truth here is going to be focused on the account of the person who alleges the event occurred.

and because when anyone mentions his frequent lies, you jump in with "actually, it's surprisingly difficult to convict of perjury, ..."

I never said anything about the high legal burden to prove perjury.  I said if it takes a complicated explanation to explain how someone was lying, you've got a weak case for it.

and most of all because you argue that it is appropriate to prevent investigation of the women's allegations by nonpartisan, professional investigators.

Taking liberties with the word "preventing" there, but I'll let it slide.  The WH may have to politically pay for their decision not to authorize further investigation, but no, I don't think there is anything unjust about it.  The man already has a lifetime appointment to the Nation's second highest court.  If you are accusing him of a crime, alert the proper authorities and press charges.  On the other hand, if you are purely coming forward because you believe you have information that should be considered during the nomination process, you gotta bear some of the responsibility to make sure you bring that crap up with time left in the process.

I'll use Roy Moore as an example.  It makes sense for the women to come out near the election with information they felt voters should be aware of, even though it may have been more effective to do so in the primary.  But do I think the Governor was wrong not to postpone the election to further investigate and/or provide an opportunity to remove Moore from the ballot?  Of course not.
97
The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit / Re: pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap
« Last post by sys on September 24, 2018, 04:36:30 PM »
i wonder how he decided which one is a lying slut and which one has her silly little head all mixed up.
98
lol ok

I’ve posted yours, you post mine.

i don't know what i've mine you've posted.

if you're asking why i don't believe that you are impartial it's because as soon as a woman discusses her memories of kav, you're all "actually, false memories are surprisingly common, ..."  but you've not mentioned so much as a caveat as to the likelihood that a perpetually drunk man would recall any of his specific drunken escapades 30 years later and what that suggests regarding the credibility of kav's denials.  and because when anyone mentions his frequent lies, you jump in with "actually, it's surprisingly difficult to convict of perjury, ..."  and most of all because you argue that it is appropriate to prevent investigation of the women's allegations by nonpartisan, professional investigators.

There's no evidence of lying. You're just mad he didn't answer the questions the way you thought he should based upon your opinion of his beliefs.

There's also no evidence he was drunk for 30 years.

Ironically, you're actually what you say he is, a liar predisposed to certain point of view, who probably got drunk in high school and college.
99
Kansas State Football / Re: OUTMANNED OUTGUNNED OUTPLAYED
« Last post by MadCat on September 24, 2018, 04:32:07 PM »
Are we better than KU?  :dunno:
100

He should definitely just sit there and let the entire democrat party accuse him of being a rapist based upon hazy uncorroborated "assaults" at some unknown party at some unknown place, because "optics". I mean, it would be pretty bad "optics" if he went into hiding instread of denying these accusations.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]