straightUp Loc: California

It's hard to believe he was being truthful because any conversation about Mueller's investigation should have been significant enough for him to remember (unless he's an idiot) I find it far more likely that he wanted to confer with his advisors before giving a false answer. I tend to agree with you Peter... I think all the lame excuses and distractions put up by conservatives is more about downplaying the significance of Kavanagh's controversies for the sake of just getting a hard-right conservative on the bench.

We can already see how Republicans are circumventing the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. When a law is needed to ensure justice, Republican law-makers sit on their hands while conservative judges say it's not their job to legislate. This is how companies have been allowed to force their employees into arbitration agreements which effectively removes the workers rights provided by the government.

debeda

Empirical means "based on observation". Proven is something that has gone through the 6 steps of scientific method and is thought to be scientific fact. You know, it's really awesome that you have such anextremely high opinion of yourself and think you're so brilliant and always right.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Harris is just like the baboon assed face Waters..a no account politician who hasn't done anything substantive for her constituents.. 'Just saying'..

straightUp Loc: California

And here's yet another example of baseless blabber... You just toss out "scientific method" like it's a magic phrase that's supposed to be the end-all. I'll put aside the fact that "scientific method" only applies to scientific theories and explain what you're missing.

Here are the "six steps" of the scientific method...

Step 1: Ask a question. (dugh)
Step 2: Do background research. (to prepare for step 3)
Step 3: Construct a hypothesis. (to prepare for step 4)
Step 4: Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. (an experiment provides a way to OBSERVE a result)
Step 5: Analyze the data and draw a conclusion. (in other words, OBSERVE the results and make your conclusions from that OBSERVATION)
Step 6: Share your results.

So, if your bent on using the scientific method to prove something, you are still relying on observations, which makes it... (that's right), EMPIRICAL.


That's all on you debeda. I have NEVER claimed to be a brilliant person. You just keep giving me opportunities to prove you wrong. Maybe that says more about you than it does about me.

straightUp Loc: California

OK... so you're proving yourself to be a racist who thinks passing laws is the only way a Senator can so anything substantial... Got it.

debeda

Most people that pontificate and bloviate have a very high opinion of themselves. I gave an opinion, you "corrected" me. I simply corrected your correction. And you go on, and on, and on and on........

straightUp Loc: California

That sounds like a stereotype to me.


I wasn't trying to correct your opinion... I was simply pointing out the redundancy of your language. I even provided a suggestion that I thought would have better represented what you were trying to say. Call it constructive criticism.


You weren't "correcting" anything debeda... You were tenaciously arguing my correction with more incorrect assumptions, which I clearly illustrated. Look, forget I said anything OK?

debeda

Lolololololololhahahahahaha get a dictionary or a high school science book. Good luck to you.

son of witless

" It doesn't matter if he was truthful. "

Finally the truth is out. Truth and facts do not matter. It does not matter if Kavanaugh is innocent.

Smedley_buzkill

His delayed answer proves he realizes this whole charade is a witch hunt and that Democrats will take any innocent statement and turn it into a circus.
If YOU thought any statement you made would be deliberately misconstrued in a partisan witch hunt, you would not be as forthcoming as YOU seem to think one should be.
Considering your take on Kavenaugh's statements, you appear to be quite well versed in sophistry and obfuscation.

Smedley_buzkill

Harris' "effectiveness" lies solely in her insistence on asking either rhetorical questions or those of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety.

Questions that have obvious answers, or questions that leave the person being questioned shown in a bad light no matter whether he answers yes or no.
Like every other Liberal on here, you are cherry picking your answers. This is a witch hunt. A woman whose own witnesses deny her story. Another who admits to being drunk. Another who has retracted her statements when her own history of unwanted sexual advances became known.
A ranking member who dishonestly sat on the accusatory letter until the eleventh hour in an attempt to spring a "gotcha!" on the hearings. A woman who claims to be afraid of flying and admits she lied about it. One who claims she was unaware that Senator Grassley offered to send people out to California to take her statement. If this is true, she is probably the only person in the US who was unaware.
Now you praise Kamala Harris for her disingenuous "do you still beat your wife, answer yes or no?" questions.