Thread: I Was Wrong

LeglizHemp - 10/5/2018 at 09:17 PM

Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


BrerRabbit - 10/6/2018 at 12:52 AM

Doesn't matter. What does matter is unlike a certain ugly here, you are able to say "I was wrong." Which makes you all right in my book.


jkeller - 10/6/2018 at 01:16 AM

quote:
Doesn't matter. What does matter is unlike a certain ugly here, you are able to say "I was wrong." Which makes you all right in my book.


I agree. It is impossible to have any reasonable discourse around here when a certain misanthrope comes around. Kudos to you, sir.


sckeys - 10/6/2018 at 01:36 AM

Win some, lose some and keep on riding.


BrerRabbit - 10/6/2018 at 01:49 AM

I have not come, yeah, to testify
About our bad, bad misfortune and I ain't here a wondering why
But I'll live on and I'll be strong
'Cause it just ain't my cross to bear


Muleman1994 - 10/6/2018 at 02:43 AM

quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Woops.
Not to worry, the sun will rise tomorrow and the lefties will try some other manufactured crisis.

After losing the last ones some creative thinking may be in order.
Y'all might want to start with getting some new leadership.


[Edited on 10/6/2018 by Muleman1994]


cyclone88 - 10/6/2018 at 03:58 PM

quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Many of us were hopeful and it's too bad we were wrong.

When a former SCOTUS justice, 1500+ law professors, and the ABA think a nominee should be disqualified for lying under oath and his display of temper and partisanship before the senate judiciary committee, rational people can believe that the senate will reject him. It's not as though Trump doesn't have other candidates who might be a little less hysterical & entitled. The ideology wouldn't be different, but the character might be.


Muleman1994 - 10/6/2018 at 05:15 PM

quote:
quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Many of us were hopeful and it's too bad we were wrong.

When a former SCOTUS justice, 1500+ law professors, and the ABA think a nominee should be disqualified for lying under oath and his display of temper and partisanship before the senate judiciary committee, rational people can believe that the senate will reject him. It's not as though Trump doesn't have other candidates who might be a little less hysterical & entitled. The ideology wouldn't be different, but the character might be.





A few ABA liberal mouth pieces came out against Judge Kavanaugh. They were not speaking for the ABA.

The ABA gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest possible rating.

Judge Kavanaugh did not lie under oath. That lie came from the Democrats and Fake News.


cyclone88 - 10/6/2018 at 08:04 PM

quote:


A few ABA liberal mouth pieces came out against Judge Kavanaugh. They were not speaking for the ABA.

The ABA gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest possible rating.

Judge Kavanaugh did not lie under oath. That lie came from the Democrats and Fake News.



I am a member of the ABA. The rating was amended to read that its evaluation of Judge Kav's "temperament" changed after his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Questions regarding the application of sanctions for lying to the SJC were communicated to ABA members.

The topic of this thread is an admission that those of us who predicted or believed that Kav wouldn't be approved were proven wrong. That's an expression of surrender and disappointment. Piling on serves no purpose.


BrerRabbit - 10/6/2018 at 08:42 PM

quote:
Piling on serves no purpose.



2112 - 10/6/2018 at 08:58 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Many of us were hopeful and it's too bad we were wrong.

When a former SCOTUS justice, 1500+ law professors, and the ABA think a nominee should be disqualified for lying under oath and his display of temper and partisanship before the senate judiciary committee, rational people can believe that the senate will reject him. It's not as though Trump doesn't have other candidates who might be a little less hysterical & entitled. The ideology wouldn't be different, but the character might be.





A few ABA liberal mouth pieces came out against Judge Kavanaugh. They were not speaking for the ABA.

The ABA gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest possible rating.

Judge Kavanaugh did not lie under oath. That lie came from the Democrats and Fake News.



Kavanaugh absolutely did lie under oath. The fact that you and the Republican party don't care says a lot about you and your party.


rmack - 10/6/2018 at 09:34 PM

quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Hemp, by now you should have learned never to underestimate the sheer lack of morality and common decency to be found in a Republican politician.


Muleman1994 - 10/6/2018 at 09:43 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Many of us were hopeful and it's too bad we were wrong.

When a former SCOTUS justice, 1500+ law professors, and the ABA think a nominee should be disqualified for lying under oath and his display of temper and partisanship before the senate judiciary committee, rational people can believe that the senate will reject him. It's not as though Trump doesn't have other candidates who might be a little less hysterical & entitled. The ideology wouldn't be different, but the character might be.





A few ABA liberal mouth pieces came out against Judge Kavanaugh. They were not speaking for the ABA.

The ABA gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest possible rating.

Judge Kavanaugh did not lie under oath. That lie came from the Democrats and Fake News.



Kavanaugh absolutely did lie under oath. The fact that you and the Republican party don't care says a lot about you and your party.



You are a liar.


2112 - 10/6/2018 at 09:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


Many of us were hopeful and it's too bad we were wrong.

When a former SCOTUS justice, 1500+ law professors, and the ABA think a nominee should be disqualified for lying under oath and his display of temper and partisanship before the senate judiciary committee, rational people can believe that the senate will reject him. It's not as though Trump doesn't have other candidates who might be a little less hysterical & entitled. The ideology wouldn't be different, but the character might be.





A few ABA liberal mouth pieces came out against Judge Kavanaugh. They were not speaking for the ABA.

The ABA gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest possible rating.

Judge Kavanaugh did not lie under oath. That lie came from the Democrats and Fake News.



Kavanaugh absolutely did lie under oath. The fact that you and the Republican party don't care says a lot about you and your party.



You are a liar.



You are delusional.


Muleman1994 - 10/6/2018 at 10:21 PM

Why are the lefties so afraid of a now Supreme Court Justice with a proven track record of ruling based on the law?


BrerRabbit - 10/6/2018 at 11:47 PM

quote:
I am a member of the ABA. The rating was amended to read that its evaluation of Judge Kav's "temperament" changed after his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Questions regarding the application of sanctions for lying to the SJC were communicated to ABA members.


@cyclone: Am curious as to the specifics of your ABA communique.

I personally found the 'drinking age' statement disturbing, not because of the underage drinking, which is normal enough, but because it was flat out false.

Even if you grant Kavanaugh 'ignorance under pressure' re this detail, a perfectly understandable mistake, how could his battery of elite lawyers have missed this and not briefed him? There is simply no way they could have overlooked this, they had to have been going over every detail. I found the legislation in the Maryland State Archives in 20 minutes online.

I cannot believe they were unaware of it. The only conclusion is that they simply did not care, and the whole business was a charade with a foregone outcome.


2112 - 10/7/2018 at 01:03 AM

quote:
quote:
I am a member of the ABA. The rating was amended to read that its evaluation of Judge Kav's "temperament" changed after his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Questions regarding the application of sanctions for lying to the SJC were communicated to ABA members.


@cyclone: Am curious as to the specifics of your ABA communique.

I personally found the 'drinking age' statement disturbing, not because of the underage drinking, which is normal enough, but because it was flat out false.

Even if you grant Kavanaugh 'ignorance under pressure' re this detail, a perfectly understandable mistake, how could his battery of elite lawyers have missed this and not briefed him? There is simply no way they could have overlooked this, they had to have been going over every detail. I found the legislation in the Maryland State Archives in 20 minutes online.

I cannot believe they were unaware of it. The only conclusion is that they simply did not care, and the whole business was a charade with a foregone outcome.


It appears that perjury doesn't matter anymore. At least if it is a Republican evaluating another Republican. I guess it's just a sign of the times in Trump's America. The truth no longer matters, as long as you support the guy.


cyclone88 - 10/7/2018 at 01:24 AM

quote:

@cyclone: Am curious as to the specifics of your ABA communique.

I personally found the 'drinking age' statement disturbing, not because of the underage drinking, which is normal enough, but because it was flat out false.

Even if you grant Kavanaugh 'ignorance under pressure' re this detail, a perfectly understandable mistake, how could his battery of elite lawyers have missed this and not briefed him? There is simply no way they could have overlooked this, they had to have been going over every detail. I found the legislation in the Maryland State Archives in 20 minutes online.

I cannot believe they were unaware of it. The only conclusion is that they simply did not care, and the whole business was a charade with a foregone outcome.


@BR: I'll answer you directly & exclusively. The ABA is not a regulatory body; it's a policy organization comprised of lawyers. Its rules of conduct for both lawyers and judges are models adopted & enforced by each state and the federal circuits. It doesn't prep nominees for SJC hearings. It provides information to the SJC for hearings.

A standing committee is charged with evaluating the LEGAL PROFESSIONAL qualifications of a judicial nominee. For SCOTUS nominees, a committee of pre-existing members provides the SJC 1 of 3 ratings - Well Qualified, Qualified, and Not Qualified based on its findings from within their circuits. Essentially, expert law professors examine the soundness & quality of writings (opinions, journal articles), former law clerks of the judge are interviewed, and well-regarded peers of the nominee are questioned about qualifications. The committee relies on information provided by these lawyers. Any ethical violations on record would be brought to the attention of the committee. Teams of interviewers report to the committee who then provides a rating to the SJC. The FBI conducts background checks.

The short answer is, unless there was an overwhelming number of lawyers, many of whom were former law clerks of the nominee who presumably know him best, who said "He has a reputation for lying, is often so drunk that he blacks out, and sobs & angrily shouts at lawyers & other judges during hearings so we question his mental state," the ABA isn't going to know. There's no conspiracy & the evaluation isn't worthless, but it's limited to what its members reveal to the committee well in advance of the actual hearings. Its evaluation to the SJC is advisory on professional qualifications only.

What caught the ABA by surprise was the unstable temperament & disrespect to senators who are constitutionally obligated to question him that Kav displayed in the weeks prior to and during the 9/27 SJC hearing. The appearance of integrity is paramount to the ABA for judges. His behavior is what prompted the amended evaluation & the ABA informed the SJC of that reason.

As to your specific question about underage drinking, that wouldn't have been something the ABA would've known. The FBI would presumably be checking things like underage drinking. The supplemental FBI investigation's mission was unclear. Most of us thought it meant the FBI would be fact-checking Kav's statements against police reports, Maryland laws, and witness accounts for discrepancies such as what you noted.






BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 01:35 AM

Why would he perjure himself on such a trivial misdemeanor? It wasn't even the issue. I think it came at him out of the sun and he didn't know. Where was his team? They could have told him and he could have shrugged off the matter as a normal peccadillo that many young people do. Instead he gave false info and came off appearing uninformed and unprofessional.

(sry cyclone, leapfrogged your post, reading it now)

[Edited on 10/7/2018 by BrerRabbit]

[Edited on 10/7/2018 by BrerRabbit]


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 01:52 AM

Thx 'clone. Yeah, something just real weird about the whole show . Now with all the backlash. I just don't get why the martyr drama, he easily could have been gracious and sympathetic, and bowed out with "you are simply mistaken, madam."


sckeys - 10/7/2018 at 02:10 AM

Grace, empathy, and manners dont come easily to them.


cyclone88 - 10/7/2018 at 02:11 AM

quote:
Thx 'clone. he easily could have been gracious and sympathetic, and bowed out with "you are simply mistaken, madam."


Absolutely. Based on everything that was known at the time, his reaction seemed foolish. He & his private legal advisers knew he wasn't being accused of a crime - he was being interviewed for a job. A 1st year law student would know that the statute of limitations would've run on any assault allegations decades ago. All he had to do was keep his cool.

Maybe he feared DJT would withdraw his nomination so he did a DJT imitation of pointing fingers, crying partisanship, and generally appearing unhinged. He may have gotten the position, but he's going to have a lifetime of being asked to recuse himself based on his blatant partiality.


sckeys - 10/7/2018 at 03:11 AM

As he well should. He screamed his views loud and clear.


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 03:40 AM

Yeah - well appreciate the clarification and insight. I think you guys are barking up the right tree. There was and is a scripted theatrical aspect to this - on both sides of course. Looks like someone was yanking pretty hard on BK's nose ring. Like, jump boy, show em who's yer daddy. Now it's all this bs about some crank calls, whether agent provocateur or not, to create a fog of war around the midterms. Feels like the election system is getting pretty stressed.


gina - 10/7/2018 at 09:37 PM

Why did the FBI interview Ms. Rodriguez who said that Kavanaugh pulled out and put his penis in her face with 4-5 witnesses being present, not interview those 4-5 people who she says saw him DO THAT?

DRAIN THE SWAMP!


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 09:59 PM

That's a stumper. You got me. Why did the FBI do that?


gina - 10/7/2018 at 10:27 PM

They probably knew if they FOUND anything, like actually spoke to alleged witnesses who could corroborate Ms. Rodriguez's statement that the investigation could last longer than a week AND they would have to report that they found something bad about Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh having Trump's support, the agents feared for their jobs and pensions?

[Edited on 10/7/2018 by gina]


Muleman1994 - 10/7/2018 at 10:37 PM

quote:
Why did the FBI interview Ms. Rodriguez who said that Kavanaugh pulled out and put his penis in her face with 4-5 witnesses being present, not interview those 4-5 people who she says saw him DO THAT?

DRAIN THE SWAMP!



Because Ms. Rodriguez recanted her claim but she was on the list of people the Dems demanded interviewed.


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 10:41 PM

quote:
Kavanaugh having Trump's support, the agents feared for their jobs and pensions?

DRAIN THE SWAMP!



Ok, but isn't "Drain the Swamp" a pro Trump slogan?


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 11:10 PM

HAHAHAHA! You are really a piece of work.

quote:
Because Ms. Rodriguez recanted her claim but she was on the list of people the Dems demanded interviewed.


#1. Her name is Ramirez.
#2. She did not recant her story. She has not released any info since the FBI interview. Whatever the FBI learned is unknown to the public.


[Edited on 10/7/2018 by BrerRabbit]


Muleman1994 - 10/7/2018 at 11:38 PM

quote:
HAHAHAHA! You are really a piece of work.

quote:
Because Ms. Rodriguez recanted her claim but she was on the list of people the Dems demanded interviewed.


#1. Her name is Ramirez.
#2. She did not recant her story. She has not released any info since the FBI interview. Whatever the FBI learned is unknown to the public.

In her interview with "The New Yorker" she stated that she could not say Kavanaugh was really there.

[Edited on 10/7/2018 by BrerRabbit]


BrerRabbit - 10/7/2018 at 11:52 PM

Nice try, adding this bit to my quoted text so it looks like I wrote it:
"In her interview with "The New Yorker" she stated that she could not say Kavanaugh was really there." Those are your words not mine.

Let's try this again, with names added to prevent your little editorial shenanigans:

Rabbit:

quote:

HAHAHAHA! You are really a piece of work.


mule:
quote:

Because Ms. Rodriguez recanted her claim but she was on the list of people the Dems demanded interviewed.



rabbit, text continued from HAHAHAHA:
quote:
#1. Her name is Ramirez.
#2. She did not recant her story. She has not released any info since the FBI interview. Whatever the FBI learned is unknown to the public.


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 12:01 AM

Don't worry, I get it -Rodriguez, Ramirez, all those Taco Truck names sound the same.


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 12:15 AM

quote:
Nice try, adding this bit to my quoted text so it looks like I wrote it:
"In her interview with "The New Yorker" she stated that she could not say Kavanaugh was really there." Those are your words not mine.

Let's try this again, with names added to prevent your little editorial shenanigans:

Rabbit:
quote:

HAHAHAHA! You are really a piece of work.


mule:
quote:

Because Ms. Rodriguez recanted her claim but she was on the list of people the Dems demanded interviewed.



rabbit, text continued from HAHAHAHA:
quote:
#1. Her name is Ramirez.
#2. She did not recant her story. She has not released any info since the FBI interview. Whatever the FBI learned is unknown to the public.




In her interview with "The New Yorker" she stated that she could not say Kavanaugh was really there.

That interview occurred before the FBI interview.
She recanted.

Just like the 3rd accuser Julie Swetnick, represented by a porn lawyer, retracted her claim.




LeglizHemp - 10/8/2018 at 12:16 AM

quote:
Kavanaugh wasn't toast.


32 comments, wow


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 12:46 AM

We really need a new conspiracy, manufactured crisis or something say Area51-ish.


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 12:48 AM

quote:
In her interview with "The New Yorker" she stated that she could not say Kavanaugh was really there.

That interview occurred before the FBI interview.
She recanted.


Nope. Ramirez did not "recant", as you say. Quite the opposite - at first she was concerned about poor memory due to drinking, but gained confidence in her story and supported the FBI investigation.

Here is the New Yorker follow up:

. . .For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

[Edited on 10/8/2018 by BrerRabbit]


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 01:01 AM

Upside is at least you learned today, here on Whipping Post, that the woman's name is Ramirez, not Rodriguez. Should save you further embarrassment in future discussions of this topic.

Schooling is good. Baby steps, baby steps.


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 01:09 AM

quote:
Why are the lefties so afraid of a now Supreme Court Justice with a proven track record of ruling based on the law?


Because, when presented with an opportunity to prove he is fit, he cried like a little baby for 30 minutes straight. Maybe there’s a tougher, more stable candidate?


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 03:10 PM

According to both A/P and CBS News:

“Ramirez has admitted that she doesn't remember all the details from the night in question and reportedly said she can't be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her.”

Ramirez was interviewed by The FBI and that interview was included in the FBI’s report.

That report was read by all the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee and not one of them said her accusation was collaborated.

There never has been any collaboration or proof of the accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford said 4 other people were witness. All four have stated they did not.

Ramirez “can’t be sure it was Kavanaugh”. Not one other person says it happened.

Swetnick has been proven a liar and withdrew her accusation.

The Dems tried to use the false accusations to destroy Brett Kavanaugh in a purely political attack.

The Dems failed, again.


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 03:22 PM

quote:
Ramirez was interviewed by The FBI ...


Hey, alright! Look at that, you started calling her Ramirez instead of Rodriguez. That is the first time I have ever seen you admit you were mistaken.

Good job. I'm sure it wasn't easy to swallow your pride and own your error.

Baby steps.


sckeys - 10/8/2018 at 03:27 PM

quote:
According to both A/P and CBS News:

“Ramirez has admitted that she doesn't remember all the details from the night in question and reportedly said she can't be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her.”

Ramirez was interviewed by The FBI and that interview was included in the FBI’s report.

That report was read by all the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee and not one of them said her accusation was collaborated.

There never has been any collaboration or proof of the accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh.
Ford said 4 other people were witness. All four have stated they did not.

Ramirez “can’t be sure it was Kavanaugh”. Not one other person says it happened.

Swetnick has been proven a liar and withdrew her accusation.

The Dems tried to use the false accusations to destroy Brett Kavanaugh in a purely political attack.

The Dems failed, again.




I figured it was time you slithered in to get the week started. Someone asked me did I watch Fox News to which I replied that I didn’t have to as my good buddy Muleman1994 (jeez, my iPad remembers your screen name) from the ABB board let’s me know every dam word they say. In case you missed it, we know your guy got on the court, by the lowest vote count in history, but he’s on. Let’s hope he isn’t the hack there as he was in the hearing. G’day junior.


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 03:44 PM

quote:
The Dems tried to use the false accusations to destroy Brett Kavanaugh in a purely political attack.

The Dems failed, again.


Well, they did make him cry like a b*tch for the world to see. Gee, what a great show of strength, Brett. This clown makes Obama look like Chuck Zito.

[Edited on 10/8/2018 by BoytonBrother]


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 03:48 PM

You have to admit the muleski is improving. Went out of his way to confirm that he was in error by using the correct name of the second woman to report sexual abuse by Kavanaugh. He could have avoided using her name at all, or deleted the erroneous post where he referred to Ramirez as Rodriguez, or tried to deflect and bury the error under misinformation, or any one of his standard little tricks.

Red letter day on Whipping Post. The mule admits he was wrong. Wow.

Great thread. We all have to admit to being wrong sometimes.


BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 03:53 PM

quote:
Went out of his way to confirm that he was in error by using the correct name of the second woman to report sexual abuse by Kavanaugh


"Alleged" abuse


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 04:01 PM

quote:
You have to admit the muleski is improving. Went out of his way to confirm that he was in error by using the correct name of the second woman to report sexual abuse by Kavanaugh. He could have avoided using her name at all, or deleted the erroneous post where he referred to Ramirez as Rodriguez, or tried to deflect and bury the error under misinformation, or any one of his standard little tricks.

Red letter day on Whipping Post. The mule admits he was wrong. Wow.

Great thread. We all have to admit to being wrong sometimes.




I went out of my way to prove you were wrong about accuser #2.
She, all the others and the left lefties lied.

There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

You lost yet again.

While the lefties will of course keep crying...

President Trump, The Republicans and The American People will continue to Make America Great Again.




BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 04:01 PM

Fair correction.

That wasn't the point, however. The fact remains that muleski admitted to an error in referring to Ramirez as Rodriguez. A first for him.

It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 04:04 PM

quote:
While the lefties will of course keep crying...


No, that was Kavanaugh crying when faced with pressure - want to see video of Crying Kavanaugh?


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 04:07 PM

quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 04:09 PM

quote:
There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.


The word you are looking for is "corroboration".

See, you are learning something new every day!


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 04:17 PM

quote:
The word you are looking for is "corroboration".


He knew that, it was that darn autocorrect again, lol.


BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 04:20 PM

There has been no collaboration of Rodriguez' story.


pops42 - 10/8/2018 at 04:22 PM

A conservative supreme court will benefit "Corporations" and the "Ultra wealthy". they will take away a woman's right to choose. It will not benefit most Americans, and certainly not the gloating and not very bright, muleturd1994.


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 04:27 PM

quote:
A conservative supreme court will benefit "Corporations" and the "Ultra wealthy". they will take away a woman's right to choose. It will not benefit most Americans, and certainly not the gloating and not very bright, muleturd1994.



We The People won.
You lost.


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 04:29 PM

quote:
quote:
There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.


The word you are looking for is "corroboration".

See, you are learning something new every day!


You need to learn English.
Both words are perfectly acceptable in this context.

Open your mind, learn something.


sckeys - 10/8/2018 at 04:33 PM

quote:
You have to admit the muleski is improving. Went out of his way to confirm that he was in error by using the correct name of the second woman to report sexual abuse by Kavanaugh. He could have avoided using her name at all, or deleted the erroneous post where he referred to Ramirez as Rodriguez, or tried to deflect and bury the error under misinformation, or any one of his standard little tricks.

Red letter day on Whipping Post. The mule admits he was wrong. Wow.

Great thread. We all have to admit to being wrong sometimes.



Well it’s a woman’s name that sounds like she could have ties to Mexico so.....


pops42 - 10/8/2018 at 04:37 PM

quote:
quote:
A conservative supreme court will benefit "Corporations" and the "Ultra wealthy". they will take away a woman's right to choose. It will not benefit most Americans, and certainly not the gloating and not very bright, muleturd1994.



We The People won.
You lost.

Corporate america, and the Ultra Wealthy won, neither of which is YOU.........Loser.


sckeys - 10/8/2018 at 04:40 PM

quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


Here comes the William Buckley quote.



Buckley would think this is Mars if he came back today. There is no such thing as “conservative” anymore and we won’t ever have to listen to the nut case evangelical “family values” BS again. I do thank President Trump for that.


sckeys - 10/8/2018 at 04:43 PM

quote:


It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.



BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 04:44 PM

quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


pops42 - 10/8/2018 at 04:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.
Only if you can afford a top notch legal defense.


BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 04:56 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


Only if you can afford a top notch legal defense.


And yourself?.... How would you respond to accusations and allegations that slandered your character? Would you believe yourself to be innocent until proven otherwise?

I sure as hell would.


2112 - 10/8/2018 at 05:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


Unless your name is Clinton.


BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 05:09 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


Unless your name is Clinton.


Excellent example. Accusations & Allegations.

Results in a Court of Law?


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 05:22 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


Unless your name is Clinton.


Excellent example. Accusations & Allegations.

Results in a Court of Law?


Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz's investigation of Hillary Clinton and related disgraced former Obama FBI officials will be fun read.
Except for Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Lynch and many more.






[Edited on 10/8/2018 by Muleman1994]


BoytonBrother - 10/8/2018 at 05:37 PM

quote:
Excellent example. Accusations & Allegations.

Results in a Court of Law?


He was impeached.


BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 05:48 PM

quote:
quote:
Excellent example. Accusations & Allegations.

Results in a Court of Law?


He was impeached.


For a brief moment, I had forgotten that either Clinton was an option.



BrerRabbit - 10/8/2018 at 05:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

quote:
The word you are looking for is "corroboration".

See, you are learning something new every day!

quote:
You need to learn English.
Both words are perfectly acceptable in this context.

Open your mind, learn something.




That's the fighting spirit! We can't learn without a bit of wrestling. Rome wasn't built in a day. So, let's dig in.

Since you are so eager to learn, below is a simple and easy to understand breakdown of the commonly confused words collaborate and corroborate.

The following is from thoughtco, a nonpartisan language assistance site, ought to be a good resource for you, user friendly, clear, and simple, unlike say Purdue's Owl, which I prefer, but its exhaustive depth can prove off-putting to those just beginning to practice proper English usage skills, or folks who have a mere casual passing interest in English, but would like to sharpen up enough to appear as if they possessed more than a rudimentary grasp of their native tongue:

https://www.thoughtco.com/collaborate-and-corroborate-differences-1689738

Humanities › Languages

Collaborate and Corroborate

Richard Nordquist
Updated March 31, 2017

If you are having a hard time deciding when to use the commonly confused words, collaborate and corroborate, you are not the only one. Here are the definitions of each of these terms to help you in your writing:

The verb collaborate means to cooperate or work jointly with others.

The verb corroborate means to strengthen, support, or confirm with evidence.

Examples:
"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. (Charles Darwin)

According to legend, he killed over a hundred men, but no historian has been able to corroborate this claim.

Practice:
(a) Divine was hired to _____ with the author to produce a new screenplay.

(b) True ideas are those we can assimilate, validate, _____, and verify.

Answers:
(a) Divine was hired to collaborate with the author to produce a new screenplay.

(b) True ideas are those we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.


Great! If you made it this far, let's put this into action: This post corroborates my earlier point that your use of collaboration was erroneous.


2112 - 10/8/2018 at 05:54 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
"Alleged" abuse


True and fair. But we'll colonize Mars before we see you offer this consideration to allegations on both sides of the aisle. Here comes the William Buckley quote.



All citizens of this Nation are innocent until proven guilty.


Unless your name is Clinton.


Excellent example. Accusations & Allegations.

Results in a Court of Law?


Does it matter? The Republicans have accused her of everything from selling uranium to Russia to running a pedophile business in the basement of a pizza restaurant, all without any evidence. Even gave her a clever nickname. Never a conviction. Never saw any outrage from the right that her life was being destroyed by false accusations. Never heard a single Republican use the words "innocent till proven guilty." When it came to her it was always "lock her up." All we had was investigation after investigation that found nothing, and none of those were one week investigations with significant limitations applied. Nope, what we see here is double standard. Now I don't know if Kavanaugh assulted anyone of not, but certainly a real honest to goodness investigation should have been conducted. People made up their minds on if he did it or not based only on their political affiliation and nothing else. In my mind, it didn't matter if he did it or not because I think he is unqualified based on his perjuring himself and his temperament, but that's a different story all together.


BIGV - 10/8/2018 at 06:07 PM

quote:
Does it matter? The Republicans have accused her of everything from selling uranium to Russia to running a pedophile business in the basement of a pizza restaurant, all without any evidence. Even gave her a clever nickname. Never a conviction. Never saw any outrage from the right that her life was being destroyed by false accusations. Never heard a single Republican use the words "innocent till proven guilty." When it came to her it was always "lock her up." All we had was investigation after investigation that found nothing, and none of those were one week investigations with significant limitations applied. Nope, what we see here is double standard. Now I don't know if Kavanaugh assulted anyone of not, but certainly a real honest to goodness investigation should have been conducted. People made up their minds on if he did it or not based only on their political affiliation and nothing else. In my mind, it didn't matter if he did it or not because I think he is unqualified based on his perjuring himself and his temperament, but that's a different story all together.


Republicans and Democrats...

Birds of a Feather....


sckeys - 10/8/2018 at 06:08 PM

But 2112, you are missing the point. That “innocent till guilty” stuff only applies to white male repubs. The president cried about “innocence” all last week but has kept quiet about those 5 dudes in NY that were actually innocent for decades. It’s no surprise that they are black and were likely poor at the time. Dry yer tears mule, there is truth in the “race card” game.


MartinD28 - 10/8/2018 at 06:32 PM

quote:
But 2112, you are missing the point. That “innocent till guilty” stuff only applies to white male repubs. The president cried about “innocence” all last week but has kept quiet about those 5 dudes in NY that were actually innocent for decades. It’s no surprise that they are black and were likely poor at the time. Dry yer tears mule, there is truth in the “race card” game.


And didn't Trump call for the death penalty for the Central Park 5? Some 14 years after the sentences were vacated based on DNA evidence Trump never apologized. What a great man of character he is & a man with an expansive mind for legal matters & the legal system.

Maybe Trump would have been a better choice than Kavy for SCOTUS. Think about it - any man who self admittedly knows more than the generals certainly must know more about the legal system than a hack like Judge K.


Muleman1994 - 10/8/2018 at 11:22 PM

The verb collaborate means to cooperate or work jointly with others.
The verb corroborate means to strengthen, support, or confirm with evidence.

Interesting that rabbit chose only the most narrow (and edited) usage of the two words.
Obviously you have not read many, or any, judicial rulings.


LeglizHemp - 10/9/2018 at 12:56 AM

Roe won't be overturned.
But, court will allow states to pass laws that limit acess to women's reproductive health by not taking on the case or overruling lower courts.

Maybe not, I'll let you know if I'm wrong again.


Muleman1994 - 10/9/2018 at 12:59 AM

That would be in the States Rights category.
Likely to be tried but that would churn through the courts for many years.


LeglizHemp - 10/9/2018 at 01:11 AM

Already is


BrerRabbit - 10/9/2018 at 01:57 AM

quote:
The verb collaborate means to cooperate or work jointly with others.
The verb corroborate means to strengthen, support, or confirm with evidence.

Interesting that rabbit chose only the most narrow (and edited) usage of the two words.
Obviously you have not read many, or any, judicial rulings.


Your definitions of the two words are correct. Ok, great, shows you are paying attention. Lets have another look at your use of the word collaboration:

quote:
There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.


"Collaboration of the alleged accusations" would mean that the accusations were working together in a joint effort.

"Corroboration of the alleged accusations" would mean verification of the accusations.

Pretty simple. I think you get it now.
Nice to see that you are actually concerned about accuracy for a change. Good work!




Muleman1994 - 10/9/2018 at 02:50 AM

quote:
quote:
The verb collaborate means to cooperate or work jointly with others.
The verb corroborate means to strengthen, support, or confirm with evidence.

Interesting that rabbit chose only the most narrow (and edited) usage of the two words.
Obviously you have not read many, or any, judicial rulings.


Your definitions of the two words are correct. Ok, great, shows you are paying attention. Lets have another look at your use of the word collaboration:

quote:
There has never been any collaboration of the alleged accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.


"Collaboration of the alleged accusations" would mean that the accusations were working together in a joint effort.

"Corroboration of the alleged accusations" would mean verification of the accusations.

Pretty simple. I think you get it now.
Nice to see that you are actually concerned about accuracy for a change. Good work!







You narrowed the use of those words to fit your argument.
That is dishonest.


BrerRabbit - 10/9/2018 at 04:17 AM

quote:
You narrowed the use of those words to fit your argument.
That is dishonest.


Exactly how did I "narrow the use" of collaborate and corroborate? Would you care to corroborate that statement?

I carefully and clearly defined both words, in as simple a manner as possible, then showed how they are used.

Tell you what, why don't you and I collaborate on figuring out the proper usage, by offering corroboration of our differing views on how these words function.

I have corroborated the defintion and usage of both words by posting a basic English lesson from a remedial language site.

I welcome your corroboration of your concept of the correct usage of the words collaborate and corroborate from any source you trust. If you would rather regard this as an argument of opinion, rather than a clarification of the rudimentary mechanics of our language, I will respect that you feel that our collaboration is not a worthwhile endeavor, and leave you to understand English as you deem fit for your level of discourse.

At least you don't come around and yell at people for using English properly, like LUKE.

And you get points for admitting you were mistaken in referring to Ms. Ramirez as Ms. Rodriguez. That showed good sportsmanship.


[Edited on 10/9/2018 by BrerRabbit]


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=147252