Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:53 pm They could all be lying, just like Trump's 14 accusers could all be lying, but that seems unlikely to me. Ford's testimony was convincing enough that Republican Senators Flake, Murkowski, and Collins, as well as the American Bar Association and a great many others have called for an FBI investigation to be conducted before moving forward.

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:25 pm

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:53 pm They could all be lying, just like Trump's 14 accusers could all be lying, but that seems unlikely to me. Ford's testimony was convincing enough that Republican Senators Flake, Murkowski, and Collins, as well as the American Bar Association and a great many others have called for an FBI investigation to be conducted before moving forward.

I don't think Ford is lying, I think she honestly believes what she is saying.
I don't think Kavanaugh is lying, I think he honestly believes what he is saying.
Someone is 'misremembering', and so far there is no corroboration for Ford's recollection of what happened. None of the people that Ford claims were present can remember the incident in question, even her friend.

Comparing Kavanaugh with Trump is yet another smear IMHO (especially when Trump does it).
Trump is a known liar. Trump has bragged on a hot mic about assaulting women. And Trump is a fundamentally immoral person. So I have no doubt that many of the accusations of sexual harassment and assault against Trump are true.

None of that is true for Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is not perfect, but his behavior towards women since high school is the polar opposite of Trump's. And the behavior described by Kavanaugh's accusers is inconsistent with the behavior consistently described by those who have actually known Kavanaugh since high school.

In retrospect, I think an FBI investigation will probably provide the best opportunity for Kavanaugh to clear his name (at least for those who are actually interested in the truth). There is already enough data out there to demonstrate that Ford's uncorroborated testimony regarding Kavanaugh is inaccurate. But hopefully it will have more impact if that analysis comes from the FBI.

I think that is part of the reason Flake pushed for the investigation.
First, it will remove one talking point from the anti-Kavanaugh smear campaign.
Second it will somewhat (but not totally) diminish the tarnish that Kavanaugh's character has received as a result of the Democratic smear campaign when the FBI validates what we already know... there is absolutely no contemporary corroboration for the claims that Ford has made against Kavanaugh.

According to USA Today
"Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee, privately told GOP senators she would not prosecute Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on the evidence she heard, according to the Washington Post."

I am confident that the FBI will come to a similar conclusion after its investigation.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:59 pm How can you believe both are telling the truth? One of them HAS to be LYING and it is her.

Ed: It's not just Ford, it wasn't just high school, and it's not just Flake. It appears that a pattern is starting to emerge.

DB: I don't think Ford is lying, I think she honestly believes what she is saying.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

*Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.

Attest, John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate. *On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.


Amendment 1
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2
- The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3
- The Housing of Soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7
- Rights in Civil Cases

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8
- Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-foundin ... ments-1-10

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:45 am

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:59 pm How can you believe both are telling the truth? One of them HAS to be LYING and it is her.

I didn't say I believe both are telling the truth.
I believe Kavanaugh is telling the truth.
I believe that Ford is telling what she has convinced herself is the truth.

Just because my personal evaluation of their testimonies is that neither is deliberately lying, that does not mean that I believe both are telling the 'truth'.

I do not know why Ford appears to believe what she believes. I do know that so far there is no contemporary corroboration to indicate that what she believes is the 'truth'.
Many people for many different reasons believe things that are not 'true', but that does not mean they are deliberately lying when they make factually inaccurate assertions that they believe to be true.

I do not fault Ford (except for possibly her memory of events that took place 35 years ago when she was a teenager) in all this.
I do fault those who are taking advantage of Ford's uncorroborated assertions to smear a good man for political purposes. Despite the fact that Ford's claims were totally uncorroborated and Ford had stated that she wanted anonymity, the Democrats leaked her uncorroborated assertions to the press in a last minute effort to smear Kavanaugh's personal and professional reputation and delay his confirmation.

IMHO both Ford and Kavanaugh are victims of the Democrats deplorable behavior.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:51 amC'mon, Ed! Now you're not being objective at all! Can't you tell the difference between a pattern of accusations that can't be substantiated, that have many problems, and in facts that we can examine and know? So many are asserting what they can't know as if it were the unquestionable truth.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:58 pm

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:51 amC'mon, Ed! Now you're not being objective at all! Can't you tell the difference between a pattern of accusations that can't be substantiated, that have many problems, and in facts that we can examine and know? So many are asserting what they can't know as if it were the unquestionable truth.

What I'm seeing is a pattern of accusations so recent that they have yet to be investigated. Some may be asserting that all of the accusations are 100% true and Kavanaugh is a dirty liar, but I'm not one of them. I want to see a thorough investigation so that the truth can be established before the vote. I think that's reasonable.

You guys are going to get your hard right, socially conservative, judicial activist one way or the other, and the majority of the country (myself included) are going to be pissed about it, but I think we'll all feel a little bit better if the GOP takes the time to ensure that their guy is at least a decent person.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:03 am Due process doesn't factor into it. This isn't a trial, it's a job interview. Credible allegations are absolutely enough reason to decline to hire an applicant. Also, there are apparently four women making similar claims, not just one. And comments in his yearbook paint him as a party boy at a party school. There's no evident fire just yet, but there's a lot of smoke there.

Incidentally, the recent allegations of sexual impropriety have overshadowed questions about his finances (and therefore his independence from outside influence) and his supposed ignorance of the fact that his mentor his mentor, Alex Kozinski, had a decades-long history of inappropriate sexual behavior in and around the workplace. Again, no fires evident, but that's a lot of smoke.

It makes me think of something that happened in my home town, back when I was a kid. I grew up in a town of 10,000 people. It was about an hour north of Boston, right on the highway. That made is convenient for people from Mass to come up and frequent our local businesses. One of those businesses was a brothel. Everybody knew about it. It was a source of fascinated amusement around the middle school and a dare at the high school. My uncles cracked jokes about it at family gatherings, as did my friends fathers'. Literally everyone in town knew about it, apart from the Chief of Police. The DEA and FBI busted the place when I was in college, and man were the local cops ever shocked and dismayed to discover that a brothel had been operating under their very noses for more than 20 years. Some folks (actually everyone) thought (actually knew) they were maybe a bit too shocked (and clearly lying). I suspect that there's some of that going on in some of Kavanaugh's denials.

Anyway, maybe the GOP should cut their losses, use this supposed injustice to fire up their base, and pick some other conservative judge for the spot.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:28 amWhen a person is accused of ANYTHING, innocence must be maintained until proven guilty, especially when all there is are allegations.
Period.
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.

It is not JUST about a trial.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:30 am I am stating that one of our legal ( and inalienable) rights is the presumption of innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.
This isn't a communist or fascist regime in which one is guilty until proven innocent.

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:50 am What does that even mean? What rights is the State denying Kavanaugh? Are you saying that the Senate is infringing on his rights by taking Ford's allegations seriously?