Graham tears into Democrats over 'sham' Kavanaugh hearing
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., let loose on his Democratic colleagues Thursday over what he called the "sham" hearing to probe sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, in a display that earned him praise from the White House and scorn from the left.
Graham blasted Democrats toward the end of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the Supreme Court nominee and accuser Christine Blasey Ford. She alleges Kavanaugh forced himself on her when both were high school students in the 1980s.
But Graham alleged the Democrats' handling was all about politics....
Thank you, Christopher, for your gracious words. Thank you, Unprofitable...just read your post. Country Boy, "maning" up was probably not the word you wanted but is more fitting. "Manning" was probably the word you had in mind. I heard this guy ranting in his defense of Kavanaugh ... sounds like he needs the Lord. People who sling words like "hell" around in common speech with in an arrogant demeanor are not very Christ-like.
Randall Balmer can accurately speak about the Evangelical lifestyle---
Randall Balmer wrote: To say that I left the evangelical subculture is not quite accurate ā and not only because evangelicalism is so stamped into my DNA that it is impossible to leave entirely. Evangelicalism really left me more than I left it. The religious tradition that shaped me was part of a long and noble movement that, in earlier generations of American life, took the part of those on the margins of society. Evangelicals, especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, sought to educate those on the bottom rungs of society so they would have a better life. They worked for the abolition of slavery and advocated equal rights, including voting rights for women.
excerpt from, https://tinyurl.com/ycotqjeb (Op-Ed The evangelical slippery slope, ...)
Actually, he might have went a bit too far to escape his Evangelical background. He's Episcopalian priest. Talk about having enough of evangelicalism
This fellow might be to people's liking, but besides I'm being neoconservative he might also be actually Neo-Evangelical I believe this is a well-known Neo-conservative, Evangelical, who gave reasons why to support Kavanaugh.
"It is difficult to comment on an unfolding news story, but this one demands it. It is hard to write about someone you know and like, especially concerning matters of character. But sometimes there is little choice...." ---Michael Gerson
http://tinyurl.com/y9p772eb (Kavanaughās nomination now hangs by the thinnest of strings)
Well let me just add this thought. In our world today a āhe said she saidā normally means the she is correct and the he is not.
I have been watching our conservative and our liberal feminists (yes if they are publicly debating this, they are indeed feminists) debating this on TV and all I can say is what a farce. I heard where the term masculine should be shunned. I heard where the concept of boys will be boys should be banned. I have heard where a woman has absolutely no moral responsibility when it comes to modesty or behavior. IOW, no means no, drunk or not.
I remember once reading about what constitutes rape on college campuses. If a woman was dating someone and he asked her for sex and she declined. If he then said, then I am going to break up with you and because of that threat she consented. That was actually labeled rape because it was against her will. Just think about that.
I have immense respect for godly women and am convinced they are totally equal in the sight of our Lord. If women stayed home and took care of their homes for their husband and children, then 99% of all this would go away.
Lindsey Graham won a lot of respect from me for maning up and telling it how it was!!! The left is trying to destroy all morality! If they are allowed to do this to kavanaugh and Roy Moore then they can do this to anyone! We need to prayer for the destruction of the left. May God have mercy on this nation!
Rodger Cohen wrote: This was a job interview, not a criminal trial. Kavanaugh, in his fury and pathos, failed the test.
excerpts from, "An Injudicious Man, Unfit for the Supreme Court "
[ http://tinyurl.com/yc4qjy76 ]
So actually the New York Times did do its job, by pointing out something that should have been obvious to anyone in this opinion piece--well except evangelicals
Why isn't a Protestant or Jew good enough to sit on the Supreme Court Are Protestants so determined to kiss the big toe the Pope?
But perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise.
Dartmouth News wrote: March 03, 2016 by Office of Communications
āAmerica's evangelicals have become secular, more interested in the pursuit of wealth and political influence than fidelity to the teachings of Jesus,ā says Randall Balmer, the John Phillips Professor in Religion, in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece ( https://tinyurl.com/ycayffca ) about why evangelicalsā support of presidential candidate Donald Trump shouldnāt surprise anyone.
excerpts from, "Quoted: Randall Balmer on Evangelicals Who Support Trump"
[ https://tinyurl.com/ybvnuzsu ]
A lot of people took notice of this article, too bad many of the right people
Christopher000 wrote: Jim Wrote: I don't think, Chris, Brett Kavanagh is going to be hurt by an FBI investigation. Right now he's got some rumors around him that should be cleared up and probably will be. If all those rumors are cleared up then the Democrats won't have anything to gripe about - as far as Brett Kavanaugh's character is concerned. Hipocrites run full circle, Jim, but this is the biggest farce I've ever seen, and I'd be saying the same on the behalf of a Democrat. What's going on when #metoo turns assumed innocent into proven guilty merely on someone's word? When exactly did all women become so honest that there's no possible way any woman could be lying by making false claims of rape and molestation? Happens quite often, yet, all of a sudden, all any woman needs to do to ruin a man, personally and professionally, is to plant a seed that he's a rapist or some deviant, and all without any sort of corroboration or evidence of any kind? Pathetic. By the way, Flake buckled under the pressure of protest outside his office, not because he had doubts. Flake is a flake.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the
Yep, that's about it, Dr Tim. I rarely even comment on politics, and I never, ever go on and on, but this whole circus really got my attention, and ire. I think, for me, it's about the utter hipocrisy and the rush to judgement more than anything else. She was celebrated and embraced, immediately, while he was condemned, immediately, based upon nothing. Can we just accuse anyone we choose of anything we want now, and ruin a person because we must be speaking truth if we're being brave enough to speak up? Crazy, and that's not how our system of justice works. Reminder that her whole goal was to accomplish this with full anonymity.
Hereās how it works, Chris. If youāre a Republican and the accused is a Republican, heās probably innocent. If youāre a Republican and the accused is a Democrat, heās probably guilty. If youāre a Democrat and the accused is a Democrat, heās definitely innocent. If youāre a Democrat and the accused is a Republican, heās definitely guilty.
Hey SC, I think you may have mis-understood...my first paragraph wasn't referring to you in any way, righteous indignation, etc. Completely separate from where I began to address you. Sorry for that confusion, and thanks for your input.
Here's the bottomline: I don't know if he was lying about ever drinking to excess as a 17yr old and not remembering something. Who knows. I'm aggrivated that the #metoo climate, and party agendas can so easily ruin, based upon nothing but unsubstantiated claims of impropriety, a person, personally and professionally, and I'm aggrivated at the hipocrisy of feigned concern and judgement based solely upon party lines.
sc wrote: The time which he couldn't put the pieces together after partying was also the time he fell out of the bus which he had rented. According to his testimony, he drank more than a couple of beers. Based on his testimony,one could conclude that he drank a lot throughout his years. ...not righteous indignation just citing an inconsistency with his testimony. He should be embarrassed for his children in this regard. Obviously, he needs prayer. He actually believes that all of his accomplishments and having a "good name" based on worldly standards in this life matter. Sad. His perspective is so narrow. Only the things done for Christ in this life carry any weight.
Though it is not proven that Kavanaugh is alcoholic, alcoholics are known to have blackouts when they drink. The amount does not matter. It's the alcohol. You can have one beer and have a blackout. You can also drink once a year and be an alcoholic. You can drink only beer and be alcoholic just as someone who drinks whiskey or wine. The commonality is the alcoholic. An alcoholic has to be careful of mouthwash, if it contains alcoholic; even medicines.
There are passive and agressive alcoholics. it's the alcohol's affects.
Last thing, then I'll stop...Many of these same Senators who are now celebrating these women, and bewailing their alleged trauma, are the very same ones who dismissed, smeared, and tried to destroy the many just like them who have come forward in the past against one of their own. Many claims by past accusers, were based upon far more than he said, she said scenarios, yet they were besmerched and scoffed at; called liars, and completely dismissed by the same sitting Senators who are now embracing Blasey, and others, because Kavannaugh is not one of their own. How did these same treat the many Clinton accusers and others before and after? Certainly not like Blasey, but the polar opposite. Hipocrites come from both sides, but this?
The time which he couldn't put the pieces together after partying was also the time he fell out of the bus which he had rented. According to his testimony, he drank more than a couple of beers. Based on his testimony,one could conclude that he drank a lot throughout his years. ...not righteous indignation just citing an inconsistency with his testimony. He should be embarrassed for his children in this regard. Obviously, he needs prayer. He actually believes that all of his accomplishments and having a "good name" based on worldly standards in this life matter. Sad. His perspective is so narrow. Only the things done for Christ in this life carry any weight.
The Post, but especially the New York Times did their due diligence to find corroborating evidence that would substantiate Blasey's accusation. Every single one of the many interviewed, including the four that Blasey said would put them together at that party, including her own best friend at the time, had no clue what she was talking about, under oath...under penalty of felony perjury, even saying that the party never happened. So, here we have a week-long FBI investigation, the same people will be interviewed, and how many of them will cop to lying, and incriminate themselves? Delay tactics with the hopes of more party loons coming forward to plant seeds of doubt, true or not, and delay tactics with the hopes of a senate power turnover in November, by drawing out nomination after nomination by any means necessary to keep a conservative out, and their ways, intact.
Amazing...righteous indignation is tantamount to the signs associated with substance abuse. Someone drinks a few beers occasionally, and they are an alcoholic. A man is fighting for his life, based upon an uncorroberated, 36yr old claim, with no evidence, whatsoever, and his emotions boiling over due to frustration and exhaustion are interpreted as coming from a belligerent, angry white man.
Hi SC, thanks...the example you gave was the one I said I wasn't remembering...the one I had said he began to explain, but got cut off. I think, "in which he had been so drunk" is an inference, and wasn't a part of the question itself, but that was their idea. The benefit of the doubt would be this: "Needed help in putting the pieces together" We'll never know his explantation because he wasn't allowed to offer one, but what if it was some sort of a chaotic moment he was referring to? Maybe a brawl that broke out? An argument involving many and he wasn't sure how it even got started? Who knows, but my point is that it's open to interpretation, and he did attempt to explain. Not saying I know, but again, if he was caught in a lie, it would have been huge news because it would have been the left's big gotcha moment.