Poll of the Day > Making sexual harassment claims that are over 30 years old.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The_tall_midget posted...

The process continues and the lying bitch was rightfully called out for having no credibility.

Let the sjw's and feminists weep. Let them bask in their impotence!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-vote-republicans-push-to-confirm-supreme-court-nominee-live-updates/
---

Mead posted...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-vote-republicans-push-to-confirm-supreme-court-nominee-live-updates/

More than likely won't lead to jack.

She has nothing. She's nothing. The feminists and sjw's will lose to justice and due process.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're interpreting SJWs to cover those doing valued work, which was specifically noted as not what an SJW does.

darkknight109 posted...

It's called a different opinion, bro.

Your opinion can't be that someone else's opinion is something else.

Jen0125 posted...

so what? that doesn't mean they didn't improve the world.

They were detrimental to bring about a change which was due to happen anyway. I believe they were more harmful than helpful.

darkknight109 posted...

While the use of violence is something that should be avoided where possible, it is not immediately disqualifying to the notion of making the world a better place.

I take issue with the redundancy. It's one thing to cause trouble to bring about change, it's another thing to destroy everything until your opponents capitulate. I believe the suffragettes specifically have more in common with BLM than MLK.
---

I still think it's sick how Kavanaugh's interrogation and character smearing is seen as "okay" by so many people.....in the OFF CHANCE he might be guilty.

But those same people admit that if he's found innocent....then what he has been put through is disgusting and wrong.

The fact is: He shouldn't have been put through this at all.

You can't justify cruelty now because there's a chance he deserves it later.

That mentality is beyond fucked up. The assumption of guilt before proven innocent.

That's like seeing someone's house burn down, all their possessions and all their pets inside.....and you refuse to allow yourself to feel sorry for the homeowner......because "What if the homeowner was a pedophile!?!" or "Well, he musta done something to deserve it. Fate only punishes the wicked."

Is that really how some people think these days? Because that's what it seems like.

So here's a question: If the FBI "investigation" reveals that Kavanaugh is 100% innocent...........should he be instantly given a significant lawsuit/payout for all the pain and suffering this witchhunt has caused him and his family?

And what if the investigation reveals he's 100% innocent....but he doesn't get enough votes to win the seat on the Supreme Court simply because some voters still don't trust him? "There wouldn't be smoke without a fire."

That would mean the bullshit allegations still had a significant impact on a totally innocent man not getting a job he wanted. Is that "okay" in your world view?

The whole situation is fucked.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-vote-republicans-push-to-confirm-supreme-court-nominee-live-updates/

More than likely won't lead to jack.

She has nothing. She's nothing. The feminists and sjw's will lose to justice and due process.

Lets leave it to the grown ups and see what happens
---

The_tall_midget posted...

The process continues and the lying bitch was rightfully called out for having no credibility.

Let the sjw's and feminists weep. Let them bask in their impotence!

You seem angry.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Your opinion can't be that someone else's opinion is something else.

And it's not.

Go read it again.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I believe the suffragettes specifically have more in common with BLM than MLK.

Well, BLM and MLK use almost identical tactics to further extremely similar causes, so...

GreenKnight127 posted...

I still think it's sick how Kavanaugh's interrogation and character smearing is seen as "okay" by so many people.....in the OFF CHANCE he might be guilty.

You are oversimplifying the issue.

If, as it turns out, Kavanaugh is innocent then yes, this treatment is shameful and Kavanaugh deserves both a unanimous vote to join the Supreme Court and a hefty lawsuit for damages against his accusers.

But that's still a very open question. And if he's guilty, he deserves every bit of what he's going through right now, because he's subjected his victims to much worse.

There's also the point that few of Kavanaugh's defenders seem to acknowledge, and that is this rampant "character smearing" would not have been necessary if the Republicans on the judiciary committee had done their fucking jobs and called for the FBI to investigate the allegations in the first place. Regardless of whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent, saying "Oh, well, we like him and there's an important political deadline coming up, so let's just sweep this under the rug..." makes him *look* guilty as fuck. And, in a bit of sweet justice, it got them nowhere except into a bigger mess.

The best thing that could come out of this is if evidence emerges that proves Kavanaugh guilty and the Republicans lose the senate in November, as that would be just desserts for everyone involved in this process.

GreenKnight127 posted...

So here's a question: If the FBI "investigation" reveals that Kavanaugh is 100% innocent...........should he be instantly given a significant lawsuit/payout for all the pain and suffering this witchhunt has caused him and his family?

Yes, absolutely.

GreenKnight127 posted...

And what if the investigation reveals he's 100% innocent....but he doesn't get enough votes to win the seat on the Supreme Court simply because some voters still don't trust him?

That's democracy working as intended. It sucks sometimes, but I've yet to see anyone come up with anything better.

I mean, Hillary Clinton was, and still is, seen by most Trump voters as corrupt, despite the fact she had been investigated numerous times by the FBI and every single one of those investigations ended with a conclusion of "no legal wrongdoing"; hell, she debatably lost the election because James Comey decided, with less than two weeks until election day and against the advice of Justice Department superiors, to reveal the investigation into her had been re-opened (though it was subsequently closed when it was determined that no material evidence had been found). I don't hear anyone on the Republican side crying for her and, to use your terminology, the way her name was dragged through the mud by a "horrible miscarriage of justice".

Anyways, if that happens you can apportion some blame to the Republicans for not swiftly calling for an investigation to dispel the suspicion and letting this circus continue.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, Hillary Clinton was, and still is, seen by most Trump voters as corrupt, despite the fact she had been investigated numerous times by the FBI and every single one of those investigations ended with a conclusion of "no legal wrongdoing"; hell, she debatably lost the election because James Comey decided, with less than two weeks until election day and against the advice of Justice Department superiors, to reveal the investigation into her had been re-opened (though it was subsequently closed when it was determined that no material evidence had been found). I don't hear anyone on the Republican side crying for her and, to use your terminology, the way her name was dragged through the mud by a "horrible miscarriage of justice".

Then it was found later that the FBI "botched" the investigation

OhhhJa posted...

Then it was found later that the FBI "botched" the investigation

Source?

Also, you're going to have to be more specific - there were many different investigations, all of which reached the same conclusion.
---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/367141-congressional-investigators-find-irregularities-in-fbis-handling-of%3famp

This entire situation is a god damn joke. The democrats are just stalling for time so they can get a majority vote and deny Trump's pick. Honestly I don't condone sexual misconduct/rape against either sex but the #metoo movement's pendulum has swung way too far off course. These systems were put in place to PROTECT people not destroy them. I feel sorry for the real victims of such crimes. Not the ones who lie and abuse the system to their own ends. <_<
---

Brocknoth posted...

This entire situation is a god damn joke. The democrats are just stalling for time so they can get a majority vote and deny Trump's pick. Honestly I don't condone sexual misconduct/rape against either sex but the #metoo movement's pendulum has swung way too far off course. These systems were put in place to PROTECT people not destroy them. I feel sorry for the real victims of such crimes. Not the ones who lie and abuse the system to their own ends. <_<

Im just glad you havent jumped to any conclusions
---

OhhhJa posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/367141-congressional-investigators-find-irregularities-in-fbis-handling-of%3famp

Ah, so basically the Republicans *said* the investigation was botched, so it must be. I'm sure they didn't have any ulterior motive for coming to that conclusion.

Brocknoth posted...

I feel sorry for the real victims of such crimes. Not the ones who lie and abuse the system to their own ends.

So which group do Kavanaugh's accusers fall into and can you prove it?

Brocknoth posted...

The democrats are just stalling for time so they can get a majority vote and deny Trump's pick.

Of course they are. I'd feel a lot worse about it if the Republicans hadn't done the exact same thing, with far less justification, for almost a full year not two years ago.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Ah, so basically the Republicans *said* the investigation was botched, so it must be. I'm sure they didn't have any ulterior motive for coming to that conclusion.

Ah, so I take it you just read the first couple sentences of the article... cant say I'm surprised though. I knew that line would stick out to a guy dedicated to the dems

Not that there weren't plenty of other sources though. Feel free to google but I know people dont like googling against their biases

Fucking hilarious that conservatives are still stuck on Clinton years after she lost the election
---

Mead posted...

Fucking hilarious that conservatives are still stuck on Clinton years after she lost the election

Funny how liberals are stuck on a supreme court nomination from years ago...

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Ah, so basically the Republicans *said* the investigation was botched, so it must be. I'm sure they didn't have any ulterior motive for coming to that conclusion.

Ah, so I take it you just read the first couple sentences of the article... cant say I'm surprised though. I knew that line would stick out to a guy dedicated to the dems

I read the whole thing; I saw nothing in there that confirmed what the Republicans were claiming. I see sloppy procedure in some spots, but nothing that makes me think there was a gross miscarriage of justice.

OhhhJa posted...

Not that there weren't plenty of other sources though. Feel free to google

I'm not doing your homework for you. If you have an argument, make it yourself.

More to the point, you're doing an excellent job of illustrating the point I was making when I brought up this little sidebar - specifically that, for all the shrieking conservatives are doing about waiting until someone is proven guilty before condemning them as a criminal, they sure didn't have any reservations about doing that to Clinton, even when she was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing.

And if, as GreenKnight hypothesized, the FBI investigation against Kavanaugh ultimately turns up nothing concrete but the senate declines to confirm him because he's simply become too toxic? Well, that's democracy for you. He and Clinton can commiserate over drinks, I'm sure.

OhhhJa posted...

but I know people dont like googling against their biases

Weren't you on your high horse bitching yesterday about "attacks on character"?

Glass houses and all...
---

darkknight109 posted...

I read the whole thing; I saw nothing in there that confirmed what the Republicans were claiming. I see sloppy procedure in some spots, but nothing that makes me think there was a gross miscarriage of justice.

"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."

"Those witnesses included Clinton and the computer firm employee who permanently erased her email archives just days after the emails were subpoenaed by Congress, the investigators said"

"Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities."

"The top Democrat on the panel acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique, but argued Republicans are politicizing their own panel's work."

Ok bud... lol. But yeah... I see why you want me to do the homework. You wanna play stupid so I have to pick out quotes from the article that illustrate something definitely more than simply sloppy going on.

darkknight109 posted...

More to the point, you're doing an excellent job of illustrating the point I was making when I brought up this little sidebar - specifically that, for all the shrieking conservatives are doing about waiting until someone is proven guilty before condemning them as a criminal, they sure didn't have any reservations about doing that to Clinton, even when she was ultimately cleared of wrongdoing.

More whataboutism. Nice.

darkknight109 posted...

Weren't you on your high horse b****ing yesterday about "attacks on character"?

Glass houses and all...

Wasnt a direct attack on you. It was a general statement about people. Nice try though my dude

OhhhJa posted...

"The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses."

Sloppy practice, not evidence of a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason why the FBI could not go back and edit their report before publishing it if new evidence came to light that warranted criminal charges.

This is exactly why draft reports are not taken as fact - because they are, by definition, still incomplete and their findings are still unconfirmed. In my occupation this sort of stuff happens all the time - you have half a dataset, you write up a report based on what you have now and if something in the rest of the dataset comes in later that contradicts what you already wrote, you go back and update that section of the report.

OhhhJa posted...

"Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities."

I fail to see how this is evidence of anything.

OK, it was FBI HQ in Washington that oversaw the investigation rather than FBI Agents in New York. So what? I can think of several reasons why that makes sense:
-While the server in question was in New York, Clinton herself, along with her aides, were in Washington. Most of the relevent personnel were there, not at the server's physical location in New York.
-Given the high profile of the person being investigated, the FBI may have wanted their most experienced and senior personnel with eyes on the file.

OhhhJa posted...

"The top Democrat on the panel acknowledged the FBI's handling of the case was unique, but argued Republicans are politicizing their own panel's work."

Again, how is this proof of anything? As I already mentioned, that appears to be exactly what the Republicans are doing - alleging some grand perversion of justice when the evidence points to some minor sloppy procedural work by the FBI.

OhhhJa posted...

More whataboutism. Nice.

An example to illustrate a point is not whataboutism.

Keep in mind that GreenKnight was fretting about Kavanaugh becoming too politically damaged to be nominated, even if he is ultimately proven innocent; all I did was point out that that's how democracy works, using Hillary as an example. I didn't say it was a good thing or that Hillary's treatment justifies Kavanaugh's (that *would* be whataboutism), merely that it's an unfortunate side-effect of the political system we live within.

OhhhJa posted...

Wasnt a direct attack on you. It was a general statement about people.

Sure it was - even though you were addressing me specifically with the front half of that sentence.

Seriously, that may just be the flimsiest defence I've ever seen you try and muster.
---

darkknight109 posted...

I read the whole thing; I saw nothing in there that confirmed what the Republicans were claiming. I see sloppy procedure in some spots, but nothing that makes me think there was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Being sloppy is definitely a great excuse. Reminds me of a dexter episode where he "botched" bloodwork so that a killer could walk. Isnt the FBI supposed to be the highest order of investigation? If they "botch" simple procedure, why should we request them for important investigations. It's probably best left to organizations that arent so "sloppy."

darkknight109 posted...

I fail to see how this is evidence of anything.

OK, it was FBI HQ in Washington that oversaw the investigation rather than FBI Agents in New York. So what? I can think of several reasons why that makes sense:
-While the server in question was in New York, Clinton herself, along with her aides, were in Washington. Most of the relevent personnel were there, not at the server's physical location in New York.
-Given the high profile of the person being investigated, the FBI may have wanted their most experienced and senior personnel with eyes on the file.

I can think of many other potential reasons too such as Clinton having closer ties to the FBI in Washington.

darkknight109 posted...

An example to illustrate a point is not whataboutism.

Keep in mind that GreenKnight was fretting about Kavanaugh becoming too politically damaged to be nominated, even if he is ultimately proven innocent; all I did was point out that that's how democracy works, using Hillary as an example. I didn't say it was a good thing or that Hillary's treatment justifies Kavanaugh's (that *would* be whataboutism), merely that it's an unfortunate side-effect of the political system we live within.

Yeah I'm sure that most people exhibiting the fallacy of whataboutism would argue that they are illustrating a point

darkknight109 posted...

Sure it was - even though you were addressing me specifically with the front half of that sentence.

Seriously, that may just be the flimsiest defence I've ever seen you try and muster.

Hey, at least I'm subtle unlike your immediate emotionally charged, "lol you're a conservative or another "left leaning centrist" rebuttal. I've clarified how many of my views dont line up at all with republicans though. But people choose to see things in black and white when you disagree with them. My views on religion, evolution, abortion, climate change, and well... more than I can even list differ wildly from any conservative

What are you going to do tomorrow when Kav is behind bars with your precious president? Hes not going anywhere because Judges have tenure. Now, what about his college roommates testimony? Redacted! It wouldnt mean a day of freedom to the victim when Kav is put away. The devil truly lives among them. Youre complaining about something you werent around for. The same is going on in the courthouse.

JoseAAV posted...

What are you going to do tomorrow when Kav is behind bars with your precious president? Hes not going anywhere because Judges have tenure. Now, what about his college roommates testimony? Redacted! It wouldnt mean a day of freedom to the victim when Kav is put away. The devil truly lives among them. Youre complaining about something you werent around for. The same is going on in the courthouse.

What are you even trying to say? Lol you sound insane

OhhhJa posted...

If they "botch" simple procedure, why should we request them for important investigations

Because there's no evidence they actually screwed up the end result.

Again, if there was undeniable proof that Clinton escaped charges because some FBI agent had already written up a report declaring her innocent and didn't want to go back and re-write it, yes, that would obviously be a gross perversion of justice and a major scandal besides. But it does not look like that happened here; all this looks like to me is that the Republicans can't stand that their repeated investigations of Clinton turned up nothing that would send her to a courtroom and now they're looking for whatever irregularities they can so they can save some sort of face and possibly rile up their base ahead of the midterms.

So yeah, let's investigate her again! Sure, the first 21 investigations didn't come up with anything, but 22nd time's the charm!

OhhhJa posted...

I can think of many other potential reasons too such as Clinton having closer ties to the FBI in Washington

Speculative. If you want me to believe that, you'll have to prove it and nothing in that article suggests that's the case.

OhhhJa posted...

Hey, at least I'm subtle unlike your immediate emotionally charged, "lol you're a conservative or another "left leaning centrist" rebuttal

Ignoring that I never said "lol you're a conservative", in what way is calling someone conservative "emotionally charged"? I pointed that out when you first tried to smear me, as I asked you why being called "conservative" would be slanderous or an attack on character, and you never answered.

OhhhJa posted..

I've clarified how many of my views dont line up at all with republicans though

I'd believe that, except I can't recall a single time where you supported a left-leaning view rather than a right-leaning one.

My views on religion, evolution, abortion, climate change, and well... more than I can even list differ wildly from any conservative

I highly doubt they differ from "any" conservative. More to the point, none of those topics you just listed, with the exception of abortion, have much of anything to do with any form of conservatism.

-Religion is a personal view; based on Pew Research polling, (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/) 23% of atheists are conservative/Republican; strong majorities of both parties believe in God or a god (90% of conservatives/Republicans are "fairly or absolutely certain" vs. 76% of liberals/Democrats); and, believe it or not, greater shares of all religious groups are more liberal than conservative, aside from Mormons, Evangelical Protestants (both of which lean strongly Republican) and Mainline Protestants (in which conservatives just barely edge out liberals, 44% to 40%).

-Evolution and climate change are both matters of fact, rather than political affiliation. While it is true that most evolution- and climate change-skeptics are conservatives, not all conservatives are evolution- or climate-change skeptics by a long shot. ~35-40% of conservatives accept that climate change is real, and similar numbers believe in evolution (for reference, liberals are surprisingly close in those numbers - 48% of Republicans vs. 27% of Democrats believe that humans have never evolved).

-As mentioned, abortion is the only thing you brought up where there is a distinct liberal/conservative split, with conservatives being pro-life; that being said, it is absolutely possible to be a pro-choice conservative (especially if we're delineating between social conservatism and other forms of conservatism).
---

JoseAAV posted...

What are you going to do tomorrow when Kav is behind bars with your precious president? Hes not going anywhere because Judges have tenure. Now, what about his college roommates testimony? Redacted! It wouldnt mean a day of freedom to the victim when Kav is put away. The devil truly lives among them. Youre complaining about something you werent around for. The same is going on in the courthouse.

Wat
---

Revelation34 posted...

JoseAAV posted...

What are you going to do tomorrow when Kav is behind bars with your precious president? Hes not going anywhere because Judges have tenure. Now, what about his college roommates testimony? Redacted! It wouldnt mean a day of freedom to the victim when Kav is put away. The devil truly lives among them. Youre complaining about something you werent around for. The same is going on in the courthouse.

Wat

Insane sjw or feminist (I know, redundant).

You can safely ignore.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because there's no evidence they actually screwed up the end result.

Again, if there was undeniable proof that Clinton escaped charges because some FBI agent had already written up a report declaring her innocent and didn't want to go back and re-write it, yes, that would obviously be a gross perversion of justice and a major scandal besides. But it does not look like that happened here; all this looks like to me is that the Republicans can't stand that their repeated investigations of Clinton turned up nothing that would send her to a courtroom and now they're looking for whatever irregularities they can so they can save some sort of face and possibly rile up their base ahead of the midterms.

So yeah, let's investigate her again! Sure, the first 21 investigations didn't come up with anything, but 22nd time's the charm!

So it means nothing that even a top Democrat said it was handled oddly? The whole thing reeks of corruption honestly. I think your bias blinds you. The draft was written up before they had even questioned clinton herself. Lol

darkknight109 posted...

I highly doubt they differ from "any" conservative. More to the point, none of those topics you just listed, with the exception of abortion, have much of anything to do with any form of conservatism.

I'm questioning what you even believe a conservative is then because those all fly in the face of traditional conservatism.darkknight109 posted...

I'd believe that, except I can't recall a single time where you supported a left-leaning view rather than a right-leaning one.

What do you consider left and right because honestly you just blurred the lines a lot for what you consider left or right or conservative and liberal... you seem to be implying that social concepts are a major factor but then said that most of the hot topics arent left or right issues. So which is it?

@Mead posted...

I swear the whole boys will be boys bullshit always applies to some white dudes and conservatives would lose their damn minds if they heard about some minority kid doing the same thing

AYO FUCK WY PIPO, MAN
---

I will also say I never said I was left leaning. Those were your words in reference to a certain famous user here. I dont consider myself left leaning. I would definitely say right leaning. I'm absolutely more of a private enterprise guy. I truly believe that the private sector can handle many things better than the government. However, I believe the government should handle education and healthcare almost entirely

That said, there are benefits to having the private sector involved in medicine. It's not coincidence that many advancements in modern medicine have been from companies in the US. The problem is that those advancements end up held hostage by people looking for maximum profits even if it means people needlessly die

OhhhJa posted...

I will also say I never said I was left leaning. Those were your words in reference to a certain famous user here. I definitely dont consider myself left leaning. I would definitely say right leaning for sure. I'm absolutely more of a private enterprise guy. I truly believe that the private sector can handle many things better than the government. However, I believe the government should handle education and healthcare almost entirely

I've really liked all your posts on this thread, OhhhJa. And yeah: people are going to make it political no matter what. People are going to incorrectly brand you to make it easier to categorize you in their ignorant mind. This is the way of people.

I've already had countless words put in my mouth on this thread, because they assume that's how I feel about certain issues, simply because I suggested Ford's allegations should be viewed with skepticism (naturally). It's very fascinating how many people can defend the grueling interrogation Kavanaugh has been put through, simply because he might be guilty. Justifying pain over a "maybe" is beyond fucked up. And if he loses his seat after the incredibly unjust character smear of a totally innocent man, "Well that's just democracy for ya!" lol

How did America get like this? Blows my fucking mind.

It's all politics now. All virtue-signaling. We aren't judged by the content of our character anymore, we are judged by our labels. Our allegations. The possibilities of what we might have done wrong over the course of our life.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Insane sjw or feminist (I know, redundant).

No it isn't.
---

OhhhJa posted...

So it means nothing that even a top Democrat said it was handled oddly?

Not really. I mean, it was handled oddly and I've already said multiple times that the procedure on this looked sloppy. That doesn't mean that the end result was wrong.

OhhhJa posted...

The draft was written up before they had even questioned clinton herself.

A portion of the draft, you mean; not the entire report.

And yes, so what? It was a draft. As I already mentioned, a draft report is not a final report and its findings should never be taken as conclusive or even indicative of what actually happened, because "draft' means that the author themselves is indicating that they're still working on it.

Part my of job is writing up engineering reports on the fitness for service of various pieces of infrastructure. In most jobs I do the exact same thing that the FBI agents did here. I start the report when the first bits of data come in and write up the sections of the report dealing with analysis. If I have most of the data in, I start to write conclusions and recommendations. And yes, I have had reports where I've written a conclusion that explicitly states that the structure is fit-for-service, only to have a final inspection report roll in and, upon review, I realise that's not the case. No big deal, since this is not a final report and has not been signed or stamped; I just go back, re-write the conclusions section of the report and specify what repairs need to be done. Takes an hour or two at most. On the other hand, if I waited until I had every single scrap of data before writing up the report, it would add months on to the project (and be difficult to keep track of as well; the report is where findings from analysis are stored).

Again, this would be a big deal if the report was finalized because some FBI agent didn't want to re-write anything, but that's not what happened.
---

OhhhJa posted...

I'm questioning what you even believe a conservative is then because those all fly in the face of traditional conservatism

I have no idea what you mean by "traditional conservatism", because there are multiple different things that could be referring to.

And just because you are liberal or conservative does not mean you have to follow every single one of the group's beliefs. For instance, I am liberal by my country's standards (which would basically be "pinko commie" by US standards), but I believe that marijuana should remain illegal, despite the fact that legalization is something that enjoys overwhelming support on the left (I do believe it should be decriminalized, but that's a separate issue).

OhhhJa posted...

What do you consider left and right because honestly you just blurred the lines a lot for what you consider left or right or conservative and liberal... you seem to be implying that social concepts are a major factor but then said that most of the hot topics arent left or right issues. So which is it?

Again, depends on what type of left and right you're talking about; "liberal" or "conservative" is not just about where you stand on a couple of hot-button issues, it's significantly deeper than that and I'm kind of amazed you don't already know that.

There's no single litmus tests for liberalism/conservatism, but generally speaking liberals believe that the welfare of the group is more important than the rights of the individual, while conservatives are the other way around. However, there are also several different "axes" on which you can express liberal or conservative tendencies, though there is some overlap between them. To wit:

Political Political conservatives believe that people prosper most with limited government intervention and that the government should do its best not to infringe upon the freedoms of its constituents. They believe in minimal regulations, low taxes, and low levels of government service, dedicated mostly to law enforcement and national security. In line with their focus on limited government power, political conservatives generally favour decentralization and a delegation of more power to local governments; for that reason, in federalist countries, conservatives tend to favour giving more power to regional governments over the federal government, and are distrustful of multi-national or globalist groups.

Economic Economic conservatives believe that maximum prosperity for the greatest number of people derives from allowing the free market to reign. Much like political conservatives, they believe taxes and regulations should be kept low, that competition should be encouraged, and that the government should not compete with the private sector, with the government's main role being to police unfair practices that would discourage competition (monopolies and monopsonies, for instance). They believe that both people and businesses should be forced to succeed or fail on their own merits and are therefore against welfare (of both the personal and corporate varieties), bailouts, and subsidies. In addition, economic conservatives are characterized by aversion to debt and deficits, believing that budgets should remain balanced and debts kept low even if it means cutting services.

*continued*
---

*continued*

Social Social conservatives believe that rights should be afforded to individuals over groups and also generally draw their morals and personal ethos from tradition and past values. Social conservatives tend to be strongly in favour of personal rights (right to freedom of speech, even if that speech is hateful or potentially destructive; right to bear arms and self defence; etc.). Social conservatives also tend to support a strong respect for authority and tradition, including traditional values (nuclear family, traditional marriage, etc.), and traditional culture (including an opposition to immigration and multiculturalism).

You can subdivide these further (for instance, social conservatives can be broken down into religious conservatives, cultural conservatives, and libertarianism, etc.) and just because someone is conservative in one category does not mean they are conservative in all of them (big business owners, for instance, tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, while religious conservatives tend to be the exact opposite).

OhhhJa posted...

I would definitely say right leaning. I'm absolutely more of a private enterprise guy. I truly believe that the private sector can handle many things better than the government. However, I believe the government should handle education and healthcare almost entirely

That said, there are benefits to having the private sector involved in medicine. It's not coincidence that many advancements in modern medicine have been from companies in the US. The problem is that those advancements end up held hostage by people looking for maximum profits even if it means people needlessly die

First off, you do know that "conservative" is synonymous with "right-leaning", right? Why did you get so upset at being labelled conservative when you just labelled yourself conservative?

Secondly, pretty much everything in this post backs up that label. You basically come across as a moderate fiscal conservative, based on these views.

GreenKnight127 posted...

People are going to incorrectly brand you to make it easier to categorize you in their ignorant mind.

People like OhhhJa himself? Because that's exactly what he did in his last post.

GreenKnight127 posted...

It's very fascinating how many people can defend the grueling interrogation Kavanaugh has been put through, simply because he might be guilty. Justifying pain over a "maybe" is beyond fucked up.

So, quick question for you. Let's say there's a mass shooting - 20 people dead, including eight children. No particular motive, the shooter seems to have just snapped. They catch someone who they're pretty sure is the guy (on account of him having the gun in question and being covered in blood when they found him), but obviously they haven't proved it in a court of law yet, so it's still a "maybe".

What would you do with this guy? I mean, you just said that we're not supposed to inflict pain over a "maybe" and putting the guy behind bars until his trial is definitely pain, as would be publishing his name and details of the allegation in the paper. After all, nothing's been proven yet - aren't we supposed to consider this guy innocent until he's been given a chance to defend himself against the allegations? So... do you just let the guy walk? Set him free in the community until the trial? Tell the newspapers they're not allowed to report anything yet?

Seriously, I'm interested in what your approach would be and how you would reconcile it with the views you just posted.
---

You aren't interested in anything I have to say, darkknight109.

Stop pretending you are.

All you are interested in is yourself. Nothing will change your mind. Your position is clear. A conversation with you is impossible. You are just waiting for your turn to talk.

Be sure to make 3 posts in a row now, replying and commenting on each sentence I have typed. LOL

All I want is Kavanaugh to get his seat on the Supreme Court. Let everyone else bitch and moan about it. There is nowhere else for this conversation to go now that we haven't already addressed. Have a fantastic day, bro. See you on other threads where I'm sure you'll remind me of this one ;)
---

Why wont the damn libs understand that his life is in ruins now, if he isnt confirmed as as Supreme Court justice he will have to go back to his lifetime job of being a judge at the second highest court in the country

Can you imagine a worse fate?
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

All I want is Kavanaugh to get his seat on the Supreme Court

It's not his seat. He's never had it. He's not been confirmed. It's A seat.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So which group do Kavanaugh's accusers fall into and can you prove it?

It's not on me to prove anything. I personally think the women accusing him is full of it. Even if she isn't it was so long ago that it doesn't matter. Like the TC has been saying if everyone was held accountable for the all dumb s*** they did when they were teenagers than nobody would be working at all. Most of us would be suspect.
---

Brocknoth posted...

darkknight109 posted...

So which group do Kavanaugh's accusers fall into and can you prove it?

It's not on me to prove anything. I personally think the women accusing him is full of it. Even if she isn't it was so long ago that it doesn't matter. Like the TC has been saying if everyone was held accountable for the all dumb s*** they did when they were teenagers than nobody would be working at all. Most of us would be suspect.

Youre perspective is shit, my dude
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

You aren't interested in anything I have to say, darkknight109.

Stop pretending you are.

I'm just pointing out holes in what you're saying. If you don't like that, that's not my fault.

If I was uninterested in what other people say, I'd start a blog, not post on a forum.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Nothing will change your mind.

Am I going to do a complete 180 and say "Oh, gee, you've convinced me, Kavanaugh is clearly innocent and all his accusers are obviously lying"? No, I can pretty much guarantee not - not unless additional information comes forward. I am educated on the matter, which means the odds of my opinions changing at this point are pretty slim (as is true with most people who are familiar with the facts of any given topic of discussion). In the same way, at this point I don't expect that you will accept that there is a chance that the women are telling the truth and Kavanaugh is guilty - you seem far too invested in the idea that Kavanaugh is innocent, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

You may, however, wind up changing a facet of how I think about the issue, as I believe I have done for you.

GreenKnight127 posted...

Be sure to make 3 posts in a row now, replying and commenting on each sentence I have typed.

If you want three posts, you're going to have to give me more material to work with. I can't even stretch this one out to two.

GreenKnight127 posted...

All I want is Kavanaugh to get his seat on the Supreme Court.

And thus we come to the crux of it - you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in winning. Kavanaugh is on "your side", so if he loses - even if that loss is justified because it is proven that he committed sex crimes against multiple women - you see it as a personal defeat, even though you absolutely shouldn't. Rape, after all, is not - and should not be - a partisan issue.

Me? I want the truth to come out. If Kavanaugh is innocent, I want to know that. If he's guilty, I want to know that too. That's all - I want a just outcome to this, and if that ends up with Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because he's innocent, so be it. I may not like it, for purely partisan reasons, but it's a fair outcome. If he's guilty, I want him to never see a judge's robe again, unless he's standing in front of one answering for his crimes.

Brocknoth posted...

Even if she isn't it was so long ago that it doesn't matter.

So how long ago does it have to be for an attempted rapist to get away with their crimes? Just curious.

Brocknoth posted...

Like the TC has been saying if everyone was held accountable for the all dumb s*** they did when they were teenagers than nobody would be working at all. Most of us would be suspect.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can pretty safely say I never tried to rape anybody when I was a teenager, and I don't think "no rapists on the Supreme Court" is an unreasonable standard to set.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So how long ago does it have to be for an attempted rapist to get away with their crimes? Just curious.

Alleged*
---

Anyone that says Nothing can convince them to change what they believe can be totally disregarded as biased beyond all reason
---

Mead posted...

Anyone that says Nothing can convince them to change what they believe can be totally disregarded as biased beyond all reason

So every human is biased. Got it.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

Anyone that says Nothing can convince them to change what they believe can be totally disregarded as biased beyond all reason

So every human is biased. Got it.

You honestly think most people have that mentality?
---

Mead posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

Anyone that says Nothing can convince them to change what they believe can be totally disregarded as biased beyond all reason

So every human is biased. Got it.

You honestly think most people have that mentality?

I certainly think most people have that mentality.

Here's how it tends to go for 90% of humans:

Step 1: Acquire an opinion about something.
Step 2: Associate with people who have that same opinion for a feeling of validation and camaraderie.
Step 3: Associate with people who don't have that opinion so you can fight about why they are wrong.

I mean....this is common knowledge.

Being on Gamefaqs message boards, you guys should know this better than anyone.

1.) Opinion is shared.
2.) Opinion is then embraced or destroyed.
3.) ...But opinion is never changed.

90% of the time.

We should sticky a thread to document all the cases in which an opinion gets changed on gamefaqs. It'll probably have 2 posts within 5 years.
---

Revelation34 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

So how long ago does it have to be for an attempted rapist to get away with their crimes? Just curious.

Alleged*

Buddy wasn't talking about "alleged" anything - he said "if he did it" it doesn't matter anyways, because it was too long ago.

So he's basically saying rape is OK, as long as you don't get caught for a few years afterwards. I'm just trying to figure out how many he thinks is a good number.
---

darkknight109 posted...

If I have most of the data in, I start to write conclusions and recommendations. And yes, I have had reports where I've written a conclusion that explicitly states that the structure is fit-for-service, only to have a final inspection report roll in and, upon review, I realise that's not the case

Just because you write up reports doesn't mean you understand the inner workings of the FBI. Neither of us do. That's why articles like that can be deceptive to the average reader. Anyway, it didnt sound like they were really anywhere near the conclusion of the investigation. I think that's where you and I differ on this.

darkknight109 posted...

Again, depends on what type of left and right you're talking about; "liberal" or "conservative" is not just about where you stand on a couple of hot-button issues, it's significantly deeper than that and I'm kind of amazed you don't already know that.

I mean... nice job twisting my words. I was pointing out that its actually kind of amazing that you assume I'm conservative constantly when I've expressed my views many times here on hot button issues that dont align with most traditional American conservatives

darkknight109 posted...

*continued*

Social Social conservatives believe that rights should be afforded to individuals over groups and also generally draw their morals and personal ethos from tradition and past values. Social conservatives tend to be strongly in favour of personal rights (right to freedom of speech, even if that speech is hateful or potentially destructive; right to bear arms and self defence; etc.). Social conservatives also tend to support a strong respect for authority and tradition, including traditional values (nuclear family, traditional marriage, etc.), and traditional culture (including an opposition to immigration and multiculturalism).

Man, that paragraph is full of contradictions.

"Being a social conservative isnt about hot button issues."

*Proceeds to cite hot button issues

Not really sure how right to bear arms applies to just conservatives. For that matter, personal liberties dont apply to just one side either. I think now you're getting social liberalism confused with socialism. You can absolutely be a socially liberal and not be deep into identity politics. That's just been all the rage in the US since around 2012 or so

"even if that speech is hateful or potentially destructive"



We have laws in place that cover destructive speech. But it depends on what you consider destructive because I dont believe hurt feelings qualifies as destructive

darkknight109 posted...

First off, you do know that "conservative" is synonymous with "right-leaning", right? Why did you get so upset at being labelled conservative when you just labelled yourself conservative?

Secondly, pretty much everything in this post backs up that label. You basically come across as a moderate fiscal conservative, based on these views.

No it isnt. Unless you're speaking in fiscal terms. We were talking about being a social conservative. Now you're shifting goalposts and saying I'm a fiscal conservative. Anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find a fiscal conservative in the US that supports the government controlling healthcare and college education

---

OhhhJa posted...

Just because you write up reports doesn't mean you understand the inner workings of the FBI. Neither of us do. That's why articles like that can be deceptive to the average reader.

Why are you trying to discredit your own article?

I'm... trying to see the logic here...

OhhhJa posted...

Man, that paragraph is full of contradictions.

"Being a social conservative isnt about hot button issues."

*Proceeds to cite hot button issues

You are 100% misquoting me at this point.

I said being a conservative isn't just about where you stand on a couple of hot-button issues; social conservatism, on the other hand, is a different story. It isn't exclusively defined by hot-button issues, but they do make up a pretty big chunk of it.

OhhhJa posted...

Not really sure how right to bear arms applies to just conservatives. For that matter, personal liberties dont apply to just one side either.

OhhhJa posted...

We have laws in place that cover destructive speech. But it depends on what you consider destructive because I dont believe hurt feelings qualifies as destructive

These points both touch on a central difference between conservatism and liberalism (speaking generally, not about the categories now) - conservatives tend to favour the individual whereas liberals favour the group.

The right to bear arms receives much higher support amongst conservatives than liberals in almost all countries where the debate exists and is generally seen as a conservative ideal. Conservatives support gun rights because it ties into their views on individualism - all individuals should have the opportunity to defend themselves and should not be denied ownership of tools to ensure the same, so long as they are using them lawfully. Liberals, on the other hand, prioritize the needs of the group and larger number of people owning guns contributes to higher levels of gun crime and homicides.

Speech is the same way. Conservatives hold that speech should not be controlled or censored, as each individual has the right to speak their mind; liberals believe that certain elements of speech which are harmful to "the group" (whether that is vulnerable portions of the group, like minorities facing discrimination, or group cohesion as a whole depends on the society) should be discouraged or, in more extreme cases, outright banned.

And yes, there are anti-gun conservatives and pro-gun liberals, just as there are pro-choice conservatives and pro-life liberals despite the fact that those views are typically reversed. However, generally speaking, conservatives trend towards individualism and policies that put power in the hands of individuals, whereas liberals favour policies that benefit the group as a collective.

OhhhJa posted...

No it isnt.

Yeah, dude, it 100% is.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-right-wing-and-conservative
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

OhhhJa posted...

We were talking about being a social conservative.

No, "we" weren't. I'm the one who brought it up in the first place - if I meant social conservative, I would have said social conservative.

OhhhJa posted...

Anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find a fiscal conservative in the US that supports the government controlling healthcare and college education

As I mentioned earlier, you need support every single issue near-and-dear to conservative hearts to qualify as conservative.
---

Mead posted...

You honestly think most people have that mentality?

Of course not. I think ALL people have that mentality.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

You honestly think most people have that mentality?

Of course not. I think ALL people have that mentality.

Thats silly
---