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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DrChandra
Wow... you didn't read what I wrote, you just read what you wanted to see...
...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 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...
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.
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.