It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is a right not a right?

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DrChandra

What it seems to you, and what I wrote, appear to be two totally different things. Again, you responded to an argument that was not being made, and that is your fault. Its entirely normal of course, because its so much easier to respond to an argument you imagined, than it is to respond to reality.

I appreciate that, but its still best to try and focus on what is being stated, rather than what is not.

Well, let's review what you wrote, with my own emphasis added--and remember for integrity's sake, the OP to which you responded is about Brett Kavanaugh, just to clear up any confusion:

Your statements mean that you would prefer potentially appointing a person who has a history of sexual battery, over making sure that a person appointed to that position has never committed any such thing IN FACT.

You didn't say "a history of alleged sexual battery," or "possible sexual batter," you said what you said, meaning that you think that Kavanaugh...in your own words..."has a history of sexual battery."
Then when you follow up people rightfully calling you out on that, you try to backstep and claim that you didn't make that assertion, but then do it again:

And again, lets be clear here... your position on this matter DOES, regardless of your protestations, mean that you are more comfortable with the possibility that a sexual predator could become a supreme court justice, than you would be with taking proper and effective steps to make sure that no one of that ilk could even be considered for the position, and that IS a big deal, making you part of the problem, not its solution.

Sorry, TrueBrit, but those of us actually reading what you're writing are not the problem here, and you certainly are not the solution in this matter.

Again, read my initial response to you if you actually want to understand why condemning someone without evidence is an ignorant approach to life. Cheering on tyrannical ideals does not make you the solution...or even part of it.




posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I can't help but notice that when you emphasized parts of what TrueBrit said, you failed to underline the words "potentially" and "possibility". Yes, they come earlier in his sentences than you would prefer, but they are there.
I read what he wrote as: he isn't directly talking about Judge K in this case, he's arguing that the position being put forth in this argument would allow for POTENTIAL rapists, horrible people, etc to slip through the cracks without fully vetting them. Maybe Judge K did what is alleged, maybe he didn't. In any case, a lot of people are arguing to let him wield this position of power without a full investigation, and that opens up a huge can of worms. What if the next SCOTUS nominee has a similar murky history, but is a Democrat? Are they going to get the same kind of leeway that fans of Judge K want him to have?

it's a slippery slope.

ETA: Also, the fact that our government even has a hush fund sort of proves that there's a reason that people in our government need it. Hence, we need to fully vet every single person that wants to be in the government, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.


edit on 5-10-2018 by narrator because: spelling

edit on 5-10-2018 by narrator because: eta



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I can't help but notice that when you emphasized parts of what TrueBrit said, you failed to underline the words "potentially" and "possibility". Yes, they come earlier in his sentences than you would prefer, but they are there.
I read what he wrote as: he isn't directly talking about Judge K in this case, he's arguing that the position being put forth in this argument would allow for POTENTIAL rapists, horrible people, etc to slip through the cracks without fully vetting them. Maybe Judge K did what is alleged, maybe he didn't. In any case, a lot of people are arguing to let him wield this position of power without a full investigation, and that opens up a huge can of worms. What if the next SCOTUS nominee has a similar murky history, but is a Democrat? Are they going to get the same kind of leeway that fans of Judge K want him to have?

it's a slippery slope.


It would serve both parties best if there was a system of due process to avoid that mess. The problem is, one side has politicized and exploited the process to where there is no due process at all.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I can't help but notice that when you emphasized parts of what TrueBrit said, you failed to underline the words "potentially" and "possibility". Yes, they come earlier in his sentences than you would prefer, but they are there.

They are there attributed to the part of the sentence discussing "potentially appointing..." or "the possibility" of confirmation, not the comments about Kavanaugh being a sexual predator or having a history of sexual abuse.

Just because the words exist in the sentences doesn't mean that they're referring to TrueBrit's claims about Kavanaugh's actions. If your interpretation of what his point is reflects his intentions, it wasn't written well at all, and I'm not the only one who has noted this.

Also, you shouldn't latch on to the talking point about "a full investigation"--there has been an appropriate FBI investigation completed AFTER a senate hearing where both the accuser and accused were questioned in detail, sworn in under penalty of perjury (the transcripts and video of which, I'm sure, the FBI has).

I work in a criminal investigation division--when there is not much to investigate, an investigation can only be so "full." Full or not in your subjective opinion, it is safe to assume that it is complete concerning the matter at hand. My wife was a background investigator for OPM, and we have discussed what is happening here, and her formerly professional opinion is that there is absolutely not much to investigate and that it wouldn't take long before it was completed (a comment she made after it was announced that it was going to happen). She was proven correct.

If you think that Kavanaugh has not been fully vetted in things that matter in his ability to be a federal judge or a SCOTUS justice, I don't know what to tell you.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DrChandra

Wow... you didn't read what I wrote, you just read what you wanted to see...


I read what you wrote, and still think it's a profoundly stupid position to hold.

Let me be clear, I agree with your view that sexual predators and other 'bad actors' should be prevented from positions of power. No reasonable person disagrees with that.

In fact, we had a process to do precisely this...which the Democrats on the committee COMPLETELY ignored for no greater reason than they sought to extract maximum possible political damage. THAT had nothing to do with finding out the truth. The means simply justified the end...denying Trump's appointment to the court. If a man's life and reputation was unjustifiably ruined, so be it. That approach should NEVER be rewarded.

When the accusation(s) first came to the attention of a single member of the committee, it could have been confidentially shared with the entire committee, a further investigation held on the merits of the accusation, and then a final judgement voted upon by the committee. THAT is due process. Ford (and similar accusers) would have gotten their 'voice' and Kavanaaugh would have gotten his due process.

But that didn't happen precisely because 'politics' sent the truth to the back of the bus. The Democrats on the Committee preferred a public circus, which I'm sure they fully expected would be enough to defeat Kavanaugh (nothing to do with the truth) and offered an excellent opportunity to signal their virtues and outrage for the mid-terms and their fundraising efforts.

You say:



...if you are more interested in the letter of the law, than making absolutely sure that someone being appointed to an outrageously powerful position is not potentially a fiend, then you are part of the problem. No where did I say that Kavanaugh is or has been proven to be a sexual predator...


Apparently, you too think it's perfectly fine for the government to destroy a man 'in the court of public opinion' on mere uncorroborated allegation alone...and you don't see that as a BIG problem?

You go on to say:



...your position on this matter DOES, regardless of your protestations, mean that you are more comfortable with the possibility that a sexual predator could become a supreme court justice, than you would be with taking proper and effective steps to make sure that no one of that ilk could even be considered for the position...


No word from you on taking "proper and effective steps to make sure" innocent people are not destroyed by the government based upon false, untested allegations.

But you've already pre-judged this case. For you, it sounds like, the circus was enough...bravo. You're not the 'problem'.

And don't bother to call for further investigation, unless there too you agree to the EXISTING process, which PRESERVES due process.

Should such a 'predator' ever make it to the court, or any position of power, nothing prevents such an individual from being prosecuted in a court of law, or impeached and removed by Congress, with PROCESS.

No. What you and others on the left want is trial by media...mob...innuendo...and untested accusation alone.

Give me a break.

Your perspective on this is the very thing our Constitution was designed to protect us against. And I for one am glad we have it. I just hope we get to keep it.



edit on 5-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DrChandra

To your question, OP, a right is always a right. The notion that rights only exist because governments sanction them is a grave appeal to authority.

Even if there were no protections, no government, no international declaration of rights, each and every individual can still make it his duty to act justly towards other individuals. That means any individual or group of individuals may choose to refrain from imposing arbitrary power on another's will, to not censor him, to offer a fair hearing, to presume innocence, to allow others to assemble, to believe according to their own conscience, etc. all without any reigning authority to coerce them to do so.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Your statements mean that you would prefer potentially appointing a person who has a history of sexual battery, over making sure that a person appointed to that position has never committed any such thing IN FACT.

Or... like me, DrChandra is 100% convinced that these 'claims' are pure fabrications, and Judge Kavanaugh is 100% innocent as he claims.

IN FACT.



posted on Oct, 5 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DrChandra

Wow... you didn't read what I wrote, you just read what you wanted to see, something you would be able to argue around, rather than what was there.

Again, if you are more interested in the letter of the law, than making absolutely sure that someone being appointed to an outrageously powerful position is not potentially a fiend, then you are part of the problem. No where did I say that Kavanaugh is or has been proven to be a sexual predator. Your inference is your problem. Learn to read, and you might waste less time arguing points that are not being made.

What I am saying, is that it is necessary to make double damned sure he isn't, meaning that regardless of the accusations, his life since toddlerhood should have been under a microscope, every fly he de-winged, every action he undertook while drinking, every single time he behaved improperly, since year dot, to make CERTAIN that he is not some sort of sicko, and that should be the case for everyone seeking powerful office. The fact that it appears that there is no effective undertaking to ensure standards are RIDICULOUSLY high when it comes to these powerful figures, should be a source of concern for everyone, not just people on the left of matters.

And again, lets be clear here... your position on this matter DOES, regardless of your protestations, mean that you are more comfortable with the possibility that a sexual predator could become a supreme court justice, than you would be with taking proper and effective steps to make sure that no one of that ilk could even be considered for the position, and that IS a big deal, making you part of the problem, not its solution.

There is no angle to approach the matter from which even remotely amounts to a substantive argument against that fact. Its just how it is. Now, you could try and own your total degeneracy by admitting it, and at least that would be intellectually honest of you, because your response indictates that YES you DO prefer taking the risk, over making sure there isn't one. But there is another option. Evolve. Move forward about three generations and actually join the rest of the human race in the present, rather than living in the pre-Nixon era your brain occupies.



You are essentially stating that due to the fact that he could potentially have committed sexual misconduct back in high school we should strike his name as a nominee? Technically, everyone is a potential divant for all we know. At least until someone disproves it, right. All one needs to do during the the presidential election is claim "he touched me", wounldn't you agree? Better yet, someone can just claim to have witnessed a candidate do something to someone at some point in time, say, 25 or 40 years ago. I mean who cares about elections when a single person can make a random, unverfied, uncorroborated and inconsistant accusation and "poof" like magic that one single person controls who the nation's president won't be. After all, he could potentially be a bad person...



posted on Oct, 6 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Also, the idea of Due-Process derives from religion.

Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join