Jump to content

Brutus_buckeye

Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • Content Count

    4,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not saying the date rape did not happen, but there is an evidentiary standard that must be met. If you claim to be date raped and tell a 3rd party about it yet refuse to speak to anyone else, and that third party is the one who reports it, it is the definition of hearsay and would not be admissible in a court proceeding and not be a standard police would use for an investigation. That may be true, but the accuracy of an event 30 years ago of a victim recalling an event is often deemed to be a lot more accurate than a 3rd party witness. Studies have proven this time and time again. The victim's account carries much more weight. All we know is that there was a dorm party (which by the space involved cant be too large). The question both you and I make assumptions on is whether the other parties in the room saw this or not and were questioned by it. You take the assumption they were not questioned on it. I am making the assumption that those who could have been identified were questioned and did not remember seeing anything, which is why it was not reported. This appears to be a question that you want to know as fact, even if in fact it seems to have been answered sufficiently. The witnesses in the room and at the party were interviewed by the FBI. That was 3 people. Kavanaugh's friend (supposedbly in the room) denied the account. Leland Keyser, her old high school friend has come out and denied the event happened and said she does not believe Balsey Ford. So how am I making this up? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/17/key-witness-brett-kavanaugh-saga-comes-down-his-side/ Outside of the witnesses in the Balsey Ford party, the other details that are there to try and prove her story involve unrelated college parties that he may or may not have attended. This is totally irrelevant to Balsey Ford's account, and Balsey Ford's account is the only one that really matters in the Kavanaugh investigation. Everything else was intended to try and show Kavanaugh as a liar and Balsey Ford as credible. To you point, his drunken college stories are irrelevant in that regard. Not trolling you. and I do believe it is time to dial down the rhetoric as @Gramarye has asked us to do. I am simply pointing out the facts of the argument.
  2. They certainly would want to do this. Casinos like to keep everyone inside as much as possible. Now whether the city allows it is another question altogether. I hope that when this happens the hotel has some height to it. at least 20 stories, hopefully more. I was in the Times Star building recently and staring out the window and with the view there, it really made the Baldwin and Tri-Health buildings seem part of downtown from there. Add a few mid rises in the sea of parking and it starts to connect it better.
  3. How pathetic. Just give up on it already. The victim will not corroborate the story. If the victim does not corroborate it, IT IS HEARSAY. HEARSAY is not a journalistic standard, it is certainly not a standard to convict someone in court. The lack of a victim does not meet Stier was lying, only that his account is not as credible as the victim. If the victim denies it happening, the 3rd party account is not as strong. Brock Turner case does not even apply here. That is such a horrendous comparison and you completely twist the FACTS. In the Turner case, you had two witnesses intervene in the matter not only catch him in the act but apprehend him at the scene of the crime. They were more than 3rd party witnesses, they were actually part of the event. Also it was real time and 30 years did not go by between the witness statement and event. Furthermore, you have physical evidence in the Brock Turner case showing the victim was physically penetrated whether she was conscious or not. You have a person who is caught in the act and the physical evidence to corroborate the story. THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE. I know evidentiary standards are tough for you to grasp but the Turner fact pattern and Stier/Kavanaugh/Ramirez fact pattern are not even relatable. Again, it is just another denial of the facts and trying to reinvent them to fit into a preconceived narrative on your end.
  4. As explained to you earlier and to address your points yet again. 1) If these are merely "made up smears" then a more thorough investigation would clear him. This would be good as it would remove the cloud hanging over him/the Court. - As with any investigation, there are certain evidentiary standards that must be followed. You can't just accuse someone of a crime and expect it to be investigated with the same thoroughness of a crime with a strong evidence trail. You cannot investigate based on speculation and conjecture. Based on the evidence available and the scope of the FBI's jurisdiction, an investigation was conducted. You would have to trust that it was done sufficiently based on the standards that these investigations use. 2) And just because the investigation was partial (at best) doesn't mean we should give up on trying to get as close to the truth as possible. - What type of investigation are you truly seeking here? There is no grounds for a criminal investigation, nor would the law and fairness allow something like that. Again, it just seems that you are not satisfied with any result that does not meet your preconceived narrative. It seems as if you are on a witch hunt. Whether it be this or Russian collusion, you apparently want it to fit your narrative. 3) Will we ever fully know, indisputably, the truth of all these incidents? Probably not. Could we get closer to that point than where we are now? Of course - A 30+ year old case of "he said/she said" we will not get any further than what we know already. All the witnesses in the Balsey Ford case have been spoken too. Her own friends deny her story. I don't really think there is any more that needs to be said on the matter. Investigating his college experience does nothing to corroborate the Balsey Ford incident. There is nothing from a supposed drunken college experience (which the victim denies happened anyway) that would help prove Balsey Ford's story. So again, this goes to your pre-conceived conspiracy theory you hold. Just because the facts don't match your narrative, you keep trying to find something that does.
  5. It is about credibility. I don't care if the NYT wants to be liberal or Fox News wants to be a conservative voice. That is up for them to decide internally. The issue is, when you cast yourself as the beacon of truth you don't have margin for error. It means small mistakes will be magnified. You word is who you are so you better go through pains and fact checking upon fact checking to make sure you are right and accurate. It should be better to be right than it is to be first. You act like the NYT article was just an innocent mistake and the fact that a minor detail was just casually overlooked. That is not the case. In this case, the most important detail of the story, the fact the victim does not remember the incident, was omitted. This is not journalism, it is a hack job. It is one thing to make a mistake on a date or other detail, that may be significant, is easy to see was just a mistake and does not change the entire character of the story. In this case, the most important detail was omitted and because of it, a minor story about a book blew up into calls for his impeachment. That is what is irresponsible. If the goal is to expose Trump for being a cheat and a liar, you can't choose sides as a journalist. let the facts fall where they will and don't try and tilt the scale further in your direction. The facts will take care of that on their own
  6. I am sorry, I never realized Ben Shapiro spoke for me.
  7. the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.
  8. I have read enough to be able to discount the theory as a bunch of worthless drivel. The sad thing is the theory is that in practice it is most harmful to African Americans, because it pushes them to the back of the line in favor or other aggrieved groups. It is just plain garbage
  9. Beyond what I read in school years ago, I don't waste my time on fantasy and reading a bunch of worthless garbage.
  10. It is not just feminism but that has taken center stage on it. It is used in race theory too.
  11. That modern intersectional race theory is actually harmful to African Americans, especially the African American men.
  12. Which is why intersectional theory on race/gender/sexual orientation is a complete sham. If you have ever noticed, when it comes to that theory, the group that is always getting pushed to the bottom of its hierarchy is African Americans. Its ironic how even in the "woke" society, the most discriminated group in the history of our country is now supposed to get in line for every other class of people are African Americans.
  13. Agreed. I just remember years ago, if you city had a Hard Rock Café, you could claim you had arrived as a destination, because you had it emblazoned on the T-shirt. To their credit, the Hard Rock brand has lasted a lot longer than the other brands like Planet Hollywood, etc.
  14. 30 years after the cool factor wore off, Cincinnati finally gets its Hard Rock Café. I can only imagine the news story
  15. So what you are saying is that if an investigation does not confirm your predisposed prejudices, keep going until you can turn up something that fits your narrative. Even then, if you cant find anything, then treat uncorroborated rumors as fact because they fit your narrative better than the truth and facts. You clearly wont settle for anything that does not result in a finding that fits your narrative, even if you have to make it up. Even the low standards of investigations have standards. Given that the investigation did not provide anything to support your prejudices then it is a sham in your view. Next time you claim you actually care about the facts, we can remember that this situation proves otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...