curious 
Member since Jun 24, 2011

click to enlarge sylvester_jpg-magnum.jpg

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »
I comment using the name "curious" in order to focus attention where it belongs - on the comment and not on the person making the comment. Citizen of COS since 2003 Family members have lived in COS for more than 40 years

Recent Comments

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

How annoying that the final word that was to have been mine has been usurped. Particularly since the usurper has been insultingly condescending. This calls for another final word from me.

To sum up the issue of the Judge and his accuser: There are 3 reasons to believe the Judge and not the accuser. (1) There is zero corroboration of the facts given by Ford. She listed 4 people who allegedly were witnesses, and none of the 4 could corroborate her story. Accusations of this sort require corroboration, and there was none. (2) I believe Ford was sexually assaulted sometime during her high school years, but her assailant was not the Judge. Her 36-year-old memories are too faulty, with many bits and pieces missing, to place credence in them. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is a memory researcher and expert in how memories are formed and how fallible and subject to decay memories are, virtually from the moment the event occurs. See citations below to 3 articles (there are many others) in which Dr. Loftus is being interviewed or quoted regarding the Judge and his accuser. And (3) Ford had a political motive in making her accusation against the Judge during his confirmation hearings rather than in 1982 (the time of the alleged assault) or 2012 (when she mentioned an assault to her therapist). Her political motive is that she and her fellow Progressives and that includes Senate Democrats dont want a constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. And the truth about her political motive will out, as the saying goes.

To sum up the issue of citations: The Indy is an opinion board. Nobody is required to preface an opinion with the words, in my opinion, so that boneheaded readers do not confuse opinions with facts. Ben Macintyre, author and expert on the subject of spies, having written numerous non-fiction books about spies for a public that is reading his books for entertainment, does not use citations for ANY of his facts, nor for ANY of his opinions. He uses citations ONLY when he is quoting a source. When the reader sees quotation marks in the text and wants to follow up, he will find the source listed in the notes in the back of the book.

When posting a comment on the Indy boards, the poster has no obligation to provide a source to back up either his facts or opinions. This is the first and last time Ill be dragged down the garden path by a fraudulent demand to provide citations. My thanks to Macintyre for his instructive contribution.

1. Corroboration Is Critical Because Memory Is Unreliable September 17, 2018 By David French
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bret…
2. Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser may both be telling the truth
The Washington Post September 18, 2018 BY MEGAN MCARDLE
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/kavana…...
3. Interview with Memory Expert Dr. Loftus: Therapy & Books Could Have Manipulated Kavanaugh Accusers Story Mediaite September 24, 2018
https://www.mediaite.com/online/interview-…...

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/27/2018 at 2:17 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

More thoughts re citations. Im currently reading Ben Macintyres A Spy Among Friends. This non-fiction book has 293 pages of text and 292 notes identifying the source of quoted material. Im on page 52, which introduces the reader to Sir Stewart Menzies, Chief of M16, Britains equivalent to our CIA. Macintyre writes that Menzies drank a great deal and kept his secrets buttoned up that he preferred women to men and horses to both and he was entirely ruthless. While based on facts gleaned from his in-depth studies of the subjects, these are opinions and Macintyre gives no citation for these opinions.

Menzies drank, but how much is a great deal? How is it known that Menzies kept secrets buttoned up? Did he tell his secrets to confidants (perhaps to the women he is said to prefer) who kept his secrets buttoned up? Was Menzies entirely ruthless? Did he never show mercy to anybody? Macintyre does not back up these opinions with citations. Macintyre gives citations only when he directly quotes a source. And it matters not whether what the source says is true or untrue. Macintyre trusts his reader to know the difference between a fact and an opinion. And since Macintyre is writing a biographical narrative and not a legal brief, I don't object that citations supporting the facts on which Macintyre bases his opinions of Menzies, or of anyone else, are not provided. I like the fact that Macintyre has taken the sensible approach of leaving it up to the reader to accept or reject his opinions.

Posted by curious on 10/24/2018 at 4:24 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

Ive said all I want to say about the Judge and his accuser. And Ive said it at least 3 times. And if I dont get off this merry-go-round before I say a 4th time what Ive already said, the Court of Public Opinion will rightfully judge me to be guilty of being stupid.

But before I ride off into the sunset, I want to comment on the red herring diversionary tactic of demanding citations to back up facts when posting on this board. This board does not require citations. I like using citations and sometimes use them. But a citation does not prove a fact is true. It only identifies the source of the fact, and the source may be untrue. The absence of a citation does not prove the fact is not true. When conclusive proof is lacking, probable truth can be determined by a preponderous of circumstantial evidence. The Senator Feinstein citation is as valid as a citation can be because Feinstein herself is quoted saying that she a Democrat politician and a Progressive believes the Constitution is a living document and she does not want a constitutionalist on the Supreme Court.

Feinsteins view of the Constitution is the view of Progressives. This fact does not need a citation because it is understood by everybody who has a smidgen of interest in politics that having a majority of Progressive justices on the Supreme Court is a fundamental goal of Democrat politicians and activists. Ford is a Democrat and an activist. She is not a politician, although with her new-found celebrity and the support of opportunists, I wouldnt be surprised if she did run for public office. Fords political actions show that she is a Progressive.

Fords supporters do not believe Ford was politically motivated, and only Fords written words or recorded statement saying she does not want a constitutionalist on the Supreme Court will be accepted by them. Ford may have made this statement in her published or unpublished writings over the past 30 years, and a search may be taking place now to find them. But she did not make such a statement recently because doing so would have resulted in Fords accusation against the Judge being dismissed. Citations by anyone other than Ford commenting on her view of constitutionalists will be dismissed. So, the search for the elusive citation Ive been asked to provide is at an end.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/22/2018 at 2:41 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

To those who question Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, or who believe that Ford did not get a fair or comprehensive hearing, or that it's the Court of Public Opinion that should decide the Judge's fate, read the transcript of Susan Collins speech given in the confirmation hearing. Her examination of Kavanaugh's judicial record over the past 12 years is thorough. The burden of proof rests on Ford, and she failed to prove her accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The standards of a Court of Law have been applied in the Senate hearing, and the majority vote of the Senators was the right and proper decision.
http://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17943276/susa…

Re Ford's motivation: There may be a personal reason for Ford to know Kavanaugh's name. From: https://100percentfedup.com/red-flags-ever…
"Its also been revealed that Judge Kavanaughs mother presided over the bankruptcy trial of Christine Batey Fords parents. Folks...Christine Ford's mom (Paula k blasey) and dad (Ralph G Blasey) we're defendants in a foreclosure case in Maryland in 1996. Guess who the judge was? Martha G Kavanaugh, mother of Brett Kavanaugh. Go to the Maryland Judiciary Case Search Criteria page: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/cases… In the Case Number search column, type 156006V and click Get Case. Then learn that the parents of Kavanaughs accuser were defendants in a court case his mother presided over.", a google search turned up these tidbits from https://pointofview.net/articles/questions…

From https://pointofview.net/articles/questions…
"15. In your letter you stated you decided to come forward because you had a sense of guilt that it would be wrong to remain silent. Your attorney has insisted in the media that your decision to come forward was not politically motivated. You are a registered Democrat in California, you have donated to Democratic campaign organizations, including the Bernie Sanders campaign, and left-leaning organizations like ActBlue. You have also protested wearing a brain cap against President Donald Trumps proposal to cut science funding. Suppose Judge Kavanaugh was a Democrat and had been nominated by President Barack Obama. Would you still have come forward?"

From https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4081… Ford's attorney is an anti-Trump activist.

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/21/2018 at 7:03 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

What was Ford's motivation? It's a certainty that she had a motivation or motivations. And I'm 100% positive the political Democrats motivation was to keep a "constitutionalist" off the Supreme Court. I've provided evidence of this from the words of Senator Dianne Feinstein. And somewhere I read that activist Democrat Ford shares the prevailing political Democrat's viewpoint on this issue.

This is a comment board. It is not a Court of Law. Citations are handy things to use to bolster one's arguments, and no one loves a citation, and is more eager to share one or a dozen with the world, than I am. If locating the citation being requested is simpler than finding a needle in a haystack - and the info online is more like a mountain than a molehill - I'll make the effort. And how about those who believe Ford's motivation has nothing to do with "constitutionalists" provide citations to back up their opinion.

BTW, name calling and asking my opinion on unrelated issues, such as Trump's alleged sexual misbehavior, does not belong in this discussion.

0 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/20/2018 at 4:25 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

So now the debate is centered on Ford's beliefs re the Constitution and whether or not Ford has said she favors a "living" Constitution. In searching online for evidence of Ford's political beliefs, I came up with this informative bit re the benefits that will now flow to Ford.

"While she came forward reluctantly and did not appear to seek fame or its benefits, famous she is and benefits will come. While Democrats insisted that she has nothing to gain, she could gain considerably as a result of her taking a stand before the Senate. She is now a celebrity and likely will be buried in book and movie deals. She has more than half a million dollars waiting for her on GoFundMe. Ford has gone from a professor at Palo Alto University to a social icon." https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4101…

I agree that "Susan Collins has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Ford ever said what you say she believes." I bring up Collins because of what she says about the judicial process of confirming a Supreme Court Justice: "Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that it be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence or in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. And this debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamentally legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill served in the long republic if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting though it may be." https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17943276/sus…

Collins reminds us that the effort to keep Trump's choice off the Supreme Court by activists and Democrats began BEFORE Trump named his candidate. The alleged sexual assault charge against the Judge was a red herring. The very, very old memories of Ford are not credible, whether presented in a Court of Law or in the Court of Public Opinion.

0 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/19/2018 at 1:38 PM

Re: “Reader: Thank God Senators followed their moral compass

Democrats in politics believe that the Constitution is a "living" document that needs to change with the culture. "Constitutionalists" believe that adhering to the Founders original intent (as explained by Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist Papers) is what preserves the citizen's liberties and protects the citizenry from a government that would otherwise evolve into tyranny and a dictatorship. The fight to preserve the Constitution is probably THE main battle being fought between Liberals (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans).

The highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offered her interpretation of the Constitution at Mondays Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Trumps nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. The Democratic senator said she was deeply troubled by the nominees identifying himself as a constitutional originalist. "Feinstein said it is now the committees job to determine whether Gorsuch is a reasonable mainstream conservative fit for the highest court in the land. Feinstein said she believes the concept ignores the intent of the framers." "Its a framework on which to build, she said. I firmly believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves as our country evolves. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrie…

Is Feinstein's view also Ford's view? I think it is.

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/19/2018 at 12:42 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation