Doesn't Good Behavior Count for Anything?

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (84 posts)

81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
Brett K. has been "practically a choir boy" the majority of his life.

Adolescence is a period of time when one learns about one's body, (being suddenly driven by hormones,) the effects alcohol, (which can be fun, but are often tragic,) and the opposite sex ... (how far can I go? Do they want it or are they just teasing and trying to get attention?)

Furthermore, during the eighties things were wild. The people in his crowd were not doing coke. Thats amazing. Or were they?
But, I digress.

My point for this thread is this: Why not bring his wife and daughter to the stand and get some details from them.

Like "Does your Dad stay away for days or weeks at a time?
Are there phones calls that he hides in closets to take?
Have you ever seen another woman's name, other than your mother's or known family friends on his phone?
Does Mr. Kavanaugh ever drink to excess, stagger around swearing, cussing and throwing things?
Does he call either of you names or treat you inappropriately?"
ETC.

If the answer to the question, "Doesn't Good Behavior Count for Anything?" is, "No,"

well ... good to know.

Especially for under-aged and just over under-aged youth.
reply report
1. 55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  <Adolescence is a period of time when one learns about one's body, (being suddenly driven by hormones,) the effects alcohol, (which can be fun, but are often tragic,) and the opposite sex ... (how far can I go? Do they want it or are they just teasing and trying to get attention?)>
  
  FYI, KLH! My computer's definition for "adolescence" --
  "the period following the onset of puberty during which a young person develops from a child into an adult."--
  is an error. Like all mammals, pre-civilized human nurse their babies and children until adolescence ("less than adult" by definition) which is the time children stop nursing and live on their own for developing their own independence before mating. In those days human were individual nomads which the "garden in Eden" is a metaphor of how man's name became human, or woman as it is written.
  
  Being a fact that Kavanaugh was already a boy -- sperm producing age man -- he should have known better, however, with that type behavior being openly spoken of around adults at that age and the fact alcohol often bring out those kinds of behaviors in both human genders, It has to be blamed on how he was brought up. In many gender segregated schools such behaviors openly talked about and even encouraged among both genders or parties composed of both genders should not be permitted by both genders of segregated schools.
  
  In integrated schools, during my 50s and 60s school days, in physical education classes children were discouraged from attending parties without parent supervision and alcohol was prohibited -- although sometimes we sneaked and did it.
  
  In that light, it's to be blamed the children's bringing without home and school social behavior instructions, if he had it then YES, "Good Behavior does Count for" Something, because he would have known better.
  reply report
2. 0
  RTalloniposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Something to note along this line of thinking is that our liberal criminal justice system regularly releases criminals who've committed far more serious crimes as adults back into society for good behavior. These people often continue their criminal activity after being released. If good behavior counts for these people, why not for this person, especially when there is no proof of the accusations, and actually, much proof that he is not that kind of person.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  yep.
  reply report
3. 89
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Your logic and rationalizations amaze me.
  
  You've said you think Ford is lying. Why do you think that?
  
  And Kavanaugh has been a choir boy? Where do you get that? How do you know that? What proof of that is there? There's pretty good evidence he's a heavy drinker.
  
  Furthermore, we know he lied in front of the Senate. He was asked about a "Devil's Triangle". He said, under oath, that it was a drinking game "like quarters". That was a bald-faced lie. Go look it up. He knew exactly what it was and he knew if he answered the question truthfully, he was done.
  reply report
4. 76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Good behavior doesn't make up for bad behavior.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I would agree - I can't imagine any good Feinstein could do that would "make up" for her poor and uncaring behavior in this case.
  
  But that's not always the case - how many mothers have been urinated on by their own children? Vomited on? Embarrassed by? Yet those same kids are much loved and turn out to be great adults (sometimes).
  reply report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sexually attacking someone is bad behavior(to put it lightly). An infant pissing on his mom is not. Why are you comparing the two? wtf is wrong with you?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we KNOW most parents are urinated on. We don't know Kavanaugh did anything wrong, no matter how much you might wish to believe it. wtf is wrong with you that you would make decisions without supporting facts?
  reply report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What 'decisions" have I made?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Sexually attacking someone..."
  
  Who and what attack do you refer to?
  reply report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Why are you pretending to be stupid?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Right. Then you DO refer to Kavanagh and the alleged attack when you say "sexually attacking someone". You know, from your crystal ball because there is surely no other evidence, that Kavanaugh sexually attacked Ford.
  
  Which was the whole point; you know nothing of the kind. You can pretend you know, but both you and I know you don't.
  
  But if you truly wish to discuss changing people with bad behavior - MLK was jailed. Nelson Mandella spend years and years in jail. Ghandi was jailed many times.
  
  All people we look up to, people we admire.
  
  Others have been released from prison to reform their life, becoming model citizens. Some were falsely accused, some were not, but they lived a good life after release either way.
  
  Your insinuation that no one can ever change; that a single episode of bad behavior forever defines what kind of person they will forever be, is ridiculous on the face of it.
  
  Just thinking out loud here, if you can refrain from insults and silly comments, but how many of our judges have committed felonies? Would we be better off with people on the bench that have been there, that understand what drives people to criminal activity? Our system is broken - is it because we're taking the wrong tack all the way along the road to justice? Should we welcome a man that was once a rapist (assuming we knew that, not just pretended it was so) and has lived decades of exemplary life since then?
  
  I don't know, but I do think it is an interesting concept.
  reply report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I would never accept a someone who has committed sexual assault in a position such as a judge.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure you would not - the emotional impact of sexual assault would override any rational thought. But I don't see that as a reason to discard the idea - emotional responses seldom are.
  
  But what about a judge that is merely accused of sexual assault? Would you deny employment to that person? Is a simple accusation enough? Or should it require the same standards we apply in the courtroom - guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - to ruin a life?
  reply report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, I wouldn't
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  ?? Sorry, I'm not positive of what you mean. Apologies, but I've found entirely too many times that I have misunderstood in these forums and I hate doing that.
  
  Do you mean you would set an accused rapist on SCOTUS without "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?
  
  Or do you mean that it should NOT require that standard to deny that employment? An accusation is sufficient?
  
  Again, I apologize for my inability to follow your words.
  report
  76
  lovetherainposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I meant an accusation would not be suffciient
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So overly dramatic. Kavanaugh is not entitled to the job. If he isn't appointed to the SC, he will still retain the lifetime appointment he already has.
  reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
Assuming she is telling the truth, is what he did really "sexual assault" or just a lack of self-control due to the effects of alcohol, (as in way too much beer)?

She said he threw her on the bed and got on top of her while his friend laughed. She said he "grinded" on her, and she screamed under his weight and tyranny. He held his hand over her mouth to quiet her, afraid of being discovered. She felt she was going suffocate and was afraid he would accidentally kill her.

If she is lying, I will be ... floored. I don't know a better word.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
As a seventeen year old I did things one a day at a park after consuming wine which was being freely dispensed. I did not remember the things I did at all! I was told by my friends.
I was so embarrassed.

The point is, I NEVER drank that much again and I NEVER acted that way, sober or not ...

EVER AGAIN!
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
... and she better not be lying.
reply report
0
PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
I don't think his life should be ruined, though if he did what she said he did, why should he not suffer the consequences? She certainly did.

I just think he should not be a Supreme Court justice.
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  if he had admitted that, yes, this happened, and went to trial about it, the verdict would be ....???
  
  I mean ... if you really think about it, this "crime" is so minimal!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Really? I feel sorry for your daughters if you have any.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I do. One. And she would never have found herself in such a position.
  reply report
  89
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So Ford or any woman who is raped is responsible for her own rape if she puts herself in a bad position? Like going to a party? Or drinking? Or a woman who makes a bad decision and is raped deserves it if she makes a bad decision.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I only said MY daughter would not have found herself at a party where there were guys who were drinking ... older guys ... . she would have been home, or pursuing sports, (my daughter loved swimming, water polo and dancing) or acting or visiting her girl friends at their family homes or other activities, such as horseback riding, bowling, clothes shopping .... not at a party at only age fifteen.
  reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
Why should he not be a Supreme Court Justice, in your mind?

After all, if his wife takes the stand, and his daughters are called upon, they will say what a wonderful man he truly is!
... and they live with him and observe him daily!
reply report
1. 89
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Surely you're joking. Do you think even if he beats his wife that she's going to testify that he beats her? If he drinks heavily, do you think his wife is going to testify to that?
  
  And really, you want his children to testify?
  
  Is that your standard for Supreme Court justices - the testimony of their family. If that were the standard, we'd never have to worry about a nominee ever being voted down ever again.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Is it your standard to search out only negative testimony and discard any positive that is found? Or do you balance the two, recognizing that everyone - everyone - makes enemies and that there WILL be some people reporting negatively?
  
  (How many of the hundred plus positive comments from past and current coworkers, friends, students, etc. that were submitted to the Judicial committee have you read and how do the reports and numbers stack up against the negative reports you've read?)
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, Crankalicious!
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's the kooky standard being used by some. There are plenty of positives about Kavanaugh, and now that he lost it a couple of times while being persecuted, these are insisting that he has anger issues or something along that line. Silly.
  reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
*Can family members be character witnesses?
Yes, but the court takes into consideration they are family.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
He is very upstanding, which is an understatement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh
reply report
1. 89
  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So are most Catholic priests, until they're not.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Well, we haven't found evidence of the "until they're not" standard with Kavanaugh.
  reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
"Kavanaugh was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress, released in September 1998, on the Monica Lewinsky–Bill Clinton sex scandal; the report argued on broad grounds for Clinton's impeachment.

Kavanaugh had urged Starr to ask Clinton sexually graphic questions, and described Clinton as being involved in 'a conspiracy to obstruct justice', having 'disgraced his office' and 'lied to the American people'. The report provided extensive and explicit descriptions of each of the President's sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, a level of detail which the authors described as 'essential' to the case against Clinton.'
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
"Kavanaugh's nomination was stalled in the Senate for nearly three years.

Democratic Senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the

'Forrest Gump of Republican politics'

In 2003, the American Bar Association rated Kavanaugh as 'well qualified', but, after opposition from Senate Democrats, rated him in 2006 as only 'qualified'

His nomination was opposed by People for the American Way:

People for the American Way:

"Kavanaugh is a narrow-minded elitist who would favor the wealthy and powerful over the rights of all."

http://www.pfaw.org
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
"In July 2007, Democratic Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin accused Kavanaugh of 'misleading' the Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination. Durbin and Leahy accused Kavanaugh of lying to them in his confirmation hearing when he denied being involved in formulating the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks."
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
partisan: a militant supporter of a party, cause, faction, person or idea.
reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
He is a judge.

He stands for The Constitution of the United States. Not his party. He is neutral. He is unbiased. He is fair. He is just. Its in his job description.

This is the only reason why he must be crucified.

THE ONLY REASON

- because of THE LEFT.
reply report
1. 90
  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, I am replying to both your comments concerning Kavanaugh's standing for the Constitution. I do not want to see him confirmed, and the Ford accusation has nothing to do with it.
  
  In his own writings he stated that (1) The president should be able to ignore a law that the White House deems unconstitutional. (A law passed by our duly elected officials with which the chief executive disagrees because it was signed by a predecessor.)
  
  https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/06/poli … index.html
  
  To do so should be in violation of the Constitution because it would be contrary with the checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial department. It would give the executive branch the authority to retroactively override the legislative branch, especially that of a previous president, without congressional approval. As is, the president has veto power, which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate. The executive order should be reserved for emergencies only, not to give the president dictatorial powers.
  Now if Kavanaugh was referring to executive orders, the president has the power to issue those, but he needs to make sure that the situation warrants it. The Congress also has the power to override an executive order, but they don't always, such as when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus:
  
  "Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, in his role as a federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s executive order was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln and the Union army ignored Taney, and Congress didn’t contest Lincoln’s habeas corpus decisions."
  
  (2) a sitting president should not be subject to investigation. Really, why not?
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … 403204aff1
  
  Kavanaugh says if the president misuses the office, he can be impeached. Doesn't there have to be an investigation of accusations before the president can be impeached? While I agree that all the threats of civil lawsuits from previous misbehaviors can be a distraction, Kavanaugh has not made himself clear on this.
  
  I do like his stand on some other issues, such as the Second Amendment, and if he is sincere, to leave Roe v. Wade alone. But until he clarifies what he means about presidential powers and sovereignty, I can't support him.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I am reading the article. I will get back to you. The question seems to be, is he partisan or not ... and he MUST not be! Preferably he abides by the Constitution. And it seems the liberals really care about this ....
  
  well, Good!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I am also contemplating Kavanaugh's interpretation of presidential "powers and sovereignty."
  
  1. A "president should be able to ignore a law that the White House deems unconstitutional. (A law passed by our duly elected officials with which the chief executive disagrees because it was signed by a predecessor.)
  
  To do so should be in violation of the Constitution because it would be contrary with the checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial department. It would give the executive branch the authority to retroactively override the legislative branch, especially that of a previous president, without congressional approval. As is, the president has veto power, which can be overridden by a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate. The executive order should be reserved for emergencies only, not to give the president dictatorial powers.
  Now if Kavanaugh was referring to executive orders, the president has the power to issue those, but he needs to make sure that the situation warrants it. The Congress also has the power to override an executive order, but they don't always, such as when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus: "Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, in his role as a federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s executive order was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln and the Union army ignored Taney, and Congress didn’t contest Lincoln’s habeas corpus decisions."
  
  2. "A sitting president should not be subject to investigation. Kavanaugh says if the president misuses the office, he can be impeached.
  
  Doesn't there have to be an investigation of accusations before the president can be impeached? While I agree that all the threats of civil lawsuits from previous misbehaviors can be a distraction, Kavanaugh has not made himself clear on this." MB
  reply report
81
Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago
The Left hates the Constitution.
reply report
1. 90
  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That is your own personal bias. Republicans and Democrats see the Constitution in different lights but I believe each party does support our Constitution. The Democrats see the Constitution as Blue, while the Republicans see the Constitution as Red. LOL
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And I have the third opinion - neither side likes the constitution. Democrats because it is about limiting federal power, not providing it, and Republicans because it demands the church not run the country.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You think Republicans want "the church" running the country?
  Huh?
  I'm pretty sure they just support freedom of religion!!!
  
  Something wrong with that?
  
  If "God" promotes The Ten Commandments which provide moral principles, what is your gripe?
  If you want a democracy of any type, the people must be convinced/inspired/encouraged(not forced) to follow a universal set of boundaries.
  
  The mere Golden Rule is not enough, apparently.
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The European mega churches almost all are Republicans so what does that mean, KLA?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
  2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
  3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
  4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
  
  Which ones "provide moral principles"? Which one is useful in setting boundaries for a people that separates church and state? Which god and which lord are referenced in these?
  
  Yes, the Golden Rule is sufficient...if followed. Precious few even try, unfortunately.
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Thumbs up you get from me, Wilderness.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You're going to send me to the hospital with a stroke if you don't quit doing that!
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You got me "Laughing My Ass Off" {LMAO} and "out loud" in the library.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness, I think Katheryn is referring to the remaining six commandments. And they do serve as a moral guide.....only those with hardened consciences feel no sense of guilt at breaking one of those.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
  
  As we surf the web and find that 90+ percent of what is being said is totally without truth. As we see hundreds and thousands of lies made about the President, his staff, Ford and Kavanaugh, etc.
  
  As we continually look with greed at the wealthy of the country and demand, at gunpoint if necessary, that they give their wealth to us to suit OUR purposes.
  
  A moral guildeline they are...but one hardly anyone tries to follow, any more than they try to follow the one nearly universal rule of all: the Golden Rule.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So many humans make that conscious decision to ignore the Golden Rule. The Rule remains hard and fast. My view, or course, is that man is incapable of following the Ten Commandments anyway - they exist primarily to point to the futility of trying to do it with the sin nature. Even so, the Rule is there, and for those unwilling to give their lives to God, it remains as a standard to aim for.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I've always found it strange that the one moral we can point to as being nearly universal through time and space is not a part of the Christian god's imperatives to His worshippers.
  
  Why is that, do you think? It comes through in the New Testament, but the people of the Old Testament never formulated it at all as far as we know. Why not?
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  True, the Jews never formally stated it, nor did God say it in so many words until Christ. I do wonder if the Pharisees never formulated it because they felt it would dilute the law, or perhaps diminish the control they had over the Jews. Christ addressed their misuse of the law, often lambasting them over their burdening of the people with regulations.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  While the Jews themselves likely understood the great second commandment as being bound in the 10 commandments, if the pharisees had formulated it, we'd know.
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I sternly agree with you, Wilderness.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  There are some places we agree, after all!
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Liberals have fine regard for the constitution, but the LEFT does not. Again, the Left's agenda and the and Liberal agenda are separate. They need to remain separate.
  
  But, they are merging, which is dangerous.
  
  The LEFT is the enemy to both liberals and Conservatives.
  I hope people are starting to understand this perspective.
  We have a common enemy: THE LEFT
  reply report
  0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with Wilderness, neither party, which according to "to form a more prefect union," is unconstitutional in the first place.
  reply report
  90
  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn, I'm kind of surprised (and glad) to see you making a distinction between LEFT and LIBERAL. Some liberals are so far left they are what we called "reds" back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I was surprised to see Democrats dubbed "Blue" and Republicans called "Red" because "red" was associated with "commie".
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting!
  reply report
79
psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago
I was a drunk teenager in the 80s but somehow managed to never grind my groin on anyone unwilling.
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know? Are you claiming you never passed out and never got so drunk you couldn't remember? Like others have claimed...
  reply report
81
gmwilliamsposted 5 years ago
Excuse me......even though Kavanaugh was a teenager, he knew right from wrong. Drinking was a lame, if any, excuse for acting inappropriately. Have you heard of SELF-CONTROL?! Immature actions are INEXCUSABLE. I was a very responsible teenager. I used self-control. Being a teenager is no excuse for acting irresponsibly nor inappropriately!!
reply report
1. 0
  Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  It would be a great thing if this whole charade WERE about morals but lets face it GM , this is about the dirty tricks and winning the mid- terms . Prof. Ford believes her own obviously extremely sketchy memory with not even her friends witness to back it up , How is the world to believe essentially a clueless memory against a proven history of Kavanaugh's legal expertise ?
  
  Answer , we can't now and never will have an answer to this alleged occurrence , for all we know perhaps even a jilted young love affair and that is what the FBI "investigation " will also find . No evidence ,
  
  Why ?
  Because once upon a time in America , evidence mattered in a trial even a trial by media in a public forum . Not once has one shred of evidence been introduced in this entire fiasco .
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Not once has one shred of evidence been introduced in this entire fiasco ."
  
  You are mistaken. A very detailed "diary" was introduced. Testimony from 3 witnesses was introduced. Something like 100 character recommendations were introduced.
  
  There has been a good deal of evidence introduced.
  reply report
  55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Except in few "white on white" sexual crimes. Even in my childhood, 1945-50s, if a black even whistled or looked hard at a white they were guilty of a crime. The system doesn't allow that anymore but ....
  reply report
2. 55
  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Alcohol generally bring out the true desires of drinkers and that is why they often drink.
  
  When I drank a little heavy it always made me more observant of things around me except the 2 times I passed completely out but I can still remember intervals of observing during my first passing out in Danang Vietnam, 1969.
  reply report
3. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No, teenage-hood is a time of experimentation and bravado, especially boys. As far as I have observed, the more daring ones became the stronger ones who went on to be successful as adults. Most teens go through this stage. I knew many who did not survive that period, (because they were way too adventurous,) and those who did survive, became wise and knowlegable, learning how to guide their wills toward safety, accomplishment and a good life.
  
  Also, I did many crazy things that I would brag about in my journal. I learned so many lessons. (One was not to leave my journal anywhere where my mother could find it.) I absolutely stopped my craziness, especially after I realized that I was just doing most of it for peer acceptance. I found out it wast't worth it at all. So, I heartily disagree with you, gmwilliams.
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Teen-age Brain:
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-wron … een-brain/
  reply report
  81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "The daredevil brain, it goes into even hyper-mode when adolescents are in groups, and in general because testosterone causes more aggression," explained Levine. "Adolescents are very much conditioned to peer pressure. And we see again across species, even adolescent mice will drink a lot more alcohol when they're in a group of adolescent mice than adult mice when you give them the opportunity to drink alcohol."
  
  from the above Link.
  reply report
4. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  For girls maybe... well, some girls ...
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uid7RrXBY2A
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
The president does and should hold special privilege above the petty use of ANY laws against him , that is what his and Kavanaugh's points are I believe . Otherwise the normal opposition could use laws to obstruct , resist or ideologically criminalize him or her .
reply report
1. 81
  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  we need a US Constitutional expert here.
  ... who I wonder?
  Maybe, Larry Arnn
  
  https://www.hillsdale.edu/staff/larry-p-arnn/
  
  Finally the ice cream has arrived.
  reply report
0
Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
Condemn Kavanaugh for perceived "anger" ? Go to a Bernie Sanders meet and greet for a half hour , watch Kamala Harris , Maxine waters , Farrakhan , ? .........Media ? Rachel Maddow , watch "The View " or any Msnbc morning" coffee mug " show.

Liberals mistake passion for anger , too many group trophy's perhaps , you've all forgotten what passion is .
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago
You are being trolled. Quit.
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What is your deal, man?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Doesn't Good Behavior Count for Anything?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Doesn't Good Behavior Count for Anything?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies