HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Goodheart » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Apr 8, 2017, 08:19 PM
Number of posts: 4,732

Journal Archives

I just wrote this missive to my brothers and sisters, with whom I have lost patience.

You're charged with deciding which to believe of two people who have told two opposite things.

Here's how a sane, responsible person decides:

Which of the two has an incentive to lie? Let's go back to yesterday.... Dr. Ford had nothing to gain and much to lose, including her own life, by coming forward. Brett Kavanaugh has a GIANT incentive: the fulfillment of a lifetime goal to get a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

Which of the two has a history of lying to protect himself/herself? We know very little about Dr. Ford, but we sure know that Kavanaugh lied to Congress about stolen documents, and we know from his testimony yesterday that he lied about "Renate alumnius", "devil's triangle", and "boofing"... and we know from his high school and Yale classmates that his claim of never getting out of control as a drunk is patently false. We also know that he lied when he said over and over again that Dr. Ford's four named persons all denied that the event never occurred.

Which of the two wants the light of an investigation to back up their word? We know Dr. Ford insisted on one, and we know that Brett Kavanaugh refused at least 19 times.

Whose account is backed up by evidence? We know that Brett Kavanaugh and his best friend boasted about drunken raucous behavior, we know that his best friend wrote a book naming a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" as a rowdy drunk. We know that Kavanaugh's own calendar contradicts his testimony of not drinking on a weekday, and even admits to drinking beer at a gathering with the very people Dr. Ford named in her accusation.

He's as guilty as sin.

This was not a court of law. In a court of law every responsible citizen would vote "not guilty". But "not guilty" in our system of justice usually means "not proven" rather than not guilty.

He's as guilty as sin.

This was a job interview, not a trial. The standards of putting somebody in jail are different from those we use to confirm or deny a job applicant. Outside of the courtroom we use a preponderance of the evidence rather than "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

He's as guilty as sin.

And the next worst part about this? YOU KNOW THAT HE IS, but you insist on eyewitnesses to the crime before you reject him from that job application. Shame on you for miscarrying your civic duty. Shame on you for supporting a proven liar onto our Supreme Court when that's supposed to be a forum for sticking to truth.

Outside of the principal accusation, he lied blatantly at least four times by my count

1- when he kept insisting that four people said "it never happened". For someone to say that they can't recall an incident is not the same as saying it never happened, and Kavanaugh knows that.

2- when he claimed that "Renate alumnius" merely referred to a circle of friends instead of a reference to a sexual conquest and also tried to paint Renate Dolphin's denial of sex with him as some sort of positive.

3- when he said that "devil's triangle" referred to a drinking game

4- when he said that "boofing" referred to flatulence.

Michael Caputo has gone BONKERS on Anderson Cooper 360


I'm sure rawstory.com will have the segment soon.


Lindsey Graham is a disgusting creature

I really don't care about his homosexuality, although it's pretty self-loathing, in my view, to embrace a political party that would despise him except for his power as a senator.

Aw fuck it... I was going to provide a whole list of how he disgusts me, but I'd be preaching to the choir, I think.

He's just fucking disgusting. I'll leave it at that.

In honor of his fellow Arizonan, I'm halfway expecting that Jeff Flake pulls a John McCain

and votes NO because this is not how the process should work.

Magicians as AGT winners

So last night Shin Lim joined Matt Franco as the only magicians to win the competition. I'm happy for him, as I would have been for any of the contestatns.

Except for Howie Mandel, who wears me out with that constant "America has to vote" line, I love America's Got Talent.... the best reality show on TV.

But for my money two magicians is two too many.

I guess it's the skeptic, atheist, freethinker in me. I'm NEVER impressed, ever. As I sit there watching I'm always trying to figure out how they're doing what they're doing, rather than being swept up in the show.

You see, I'm not sure everybody understands what I do: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS MAGIC.

And, seriously, folks... I'm a generally fun guy to be around.

Graham is arguing against liberty.


Kavanaugh has probably set a record for the number of times he says "precedent" as a basis

for his rulings.

But he's a cherry picking snake.

I refer you to the Agri Processor v. NLRB case of 2008, in which he dissented, against the union bargaining rights of undocumented immigrant workers, even when a similar case had been settled in 1976 (Sure Tan v. NLRB) in favor of undocumented laborers by a 7-2 majority. He even had the nerve to cite the DISSENT in that case as a basis for his own dissent in the newer one.

He claims that the IRCA of 1986 changed the bargaining rights of those workers, inasmuch as that act made it illegal for companies to hire undocumented immigrants... so they were no longer "employees" entitled to labor protections. But the majority in the Agri Processor case rebutted his logic, including with the fact that Congress never expressly nor implicitly indicated that it intended with IRCA to end labor protections.

But there's another curious thing about that matter... Kavanaugh would have protected Agri Processor against having to provide fair labor practices to its workers by illegally hiring them in the first place! That can only seem fair, appropriate, and legally intended by a SNAKE, in my view.
Go to Page: 1