On the front page of Urban Dictionary right now:
Devils TriangleThese definitions go back to the early 00s, so they're not concocted to hurt Kavanaugh, but they don't go back to the early 80s, so they're somewhat weak as definitions used by teenaged Kavanaugh in his yearbook.
A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality....
by W_J May 11, 2008
boofed
to have taken it in the butt; had anal sex.
Nick boofed Mal last night.
by Andrea M. October 11, 2004
Also on the front page at Urban Dictionary because of (I presume) the Kavanaugh hearings (WaPo transcript):
7 f'sThe 7 f's relates to this part of Whitehouse's questioning of Kavanaugh yesterday:
Find them
French them
Feel them
Finger them
Fuck them
Forget them
Forever
I did the big 7 f's last night
#find#french#feel#finger#fuck#forget#forever#them#7#f#f's#club#big
by * * February 21, 2007
WHITEHOUSE: And there are, like, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven F’s in front of the Fourth of July [on Kavanaugh's high school yearbook page]. What does that signify, if anything?In the same questioning session, Whitehouse had asked Kavanaugh about "Devil’s triangle," and Kavanaugh had said, "Drinking game."
KAVANAUGH: One of our friends, Squi, when he said the F word starting at a young age, had kind of a wind-up to the F word. Kind of a “ffff.” (LAUGHTER) And then the word would come out. And when we were 15, we thought that was funny. And it became an inside joke for the — how he would say, “Ffff” — and I won’t repeat it here. For the F word.
WHITEHOUSE: How’s it played?Asked about "boofed," Kavanaugh had said "That refers to flatulence. We were 16."
KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.
WHITEHOUSE: And?
KAVANAUGH: You ever played quarters?
WHITEHOUSE: No (ph).
KAVANAUGH: OK. It’s a quarters game.
WHITEHOUSE: OK. And so when your friend Mark Judge said the same — put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?
KAVANAUGH: I don’t know what he did, but that’s my recollection. We want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page, I’m — I’m game.
ADDED: Do I agree with what Whitehouse said "I hope we can all agree" about? I think many people, when they are young, drink and say crude things about sex, including things like that 7 fs business and voicing enthusiasm for anal sex and threesomes, and I don't think any of that junk is even relevant to the question whether a person with a long professional career has the character needed to serve on the Supreme Court.
But Whitehouse only asked us to agree that if Ford's allegations are true, he should not serve on the Court, and I will agree to that. The question remains whether Ford's allegations are true, and Whitehouse is using Kavanaugh's testimony about the meaning of "boofed" and "Devil's triangle" to attack his credibility. If we think he lied under oath about that, then it's more likely that he lied about other things, including his denial of Ford's allegations.
Posts
248 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248The truth cannot be known - especially without witnesses, or even a time and place.
If you read Douthat's column you'll see he raises a number of questions/issues that might give us more information. More than we have. All of the witnesses - alleged or not - haven't been interviewed.
E.g, what about "Squi"? Ford said he was her boyfriend who introduced her to Kavanaugh. He was at the party (she said). If we find him we might learn more.
Thanks Francisco and Yancy.
This is very interesting:
MITCHELL: I want to make sure I understand that. Did you already have your therapy records at that time?
FORD: I had looked at them online to see if they existed, yes.
me: note she does not say she had them. Just that she had looked at them online
MITCHELL: OK.
So this was something that was available to you via a computer, like a — a patient portal?
FORD: Actually, no, it was in the office of a provider.
MITCHELL: OK.
FORD: She helped me go through the record to locate whether I had had record of this conversation that I had remembered.
MITCHELL: Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?
FORD: I don’t remember. I remember summarizing for her what they said. So I’m not – I’m not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.
MITCHELL: OK. So it’s possible that the reporter did not see these notes.
FORD: I don’t know if she’s – I can’t recall whether she saw them directly or if I just told her what they said.
MITCHELL: Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel?
FORD: Just the counsel.
MITCHELL: OK. Would it be fair to say that Brett Kavanaugh’s name is not listed in those notes?
FORD: His name is not listed in those notes.
MITCHELL: Would it also be fair to say that the therapist notes that we’ve been talking about say that there were four boys in the room?
FORD: It describes the sexual assault and it says erroneously by four boys. So the therapist got the content of it wrong.
MITCHELL: And you corrected that to The Washington Post reporter, correct?
FORD: Correct.
I am going to define what "cruelly neutral" would really be in the present case:
Evaluating the two- claim and counterclaim- based on the evidence supplied by both sides.
The only evidence Ford's story had was Ford's story itself. It was plausible- she did come from that social strata and I think it quite obvious that she and Kavanaugh moved in the same circles, so her claim couldn't be dismissed as improbable. However, the witnesses she claimed could support just the basic frame for the accusation- that there was a small party consisting of the people Ford named, or thought she remembered, couldn't do so, and wrote to the committee that they couldn't. In telling her story yesterday, Ford contradicted the prior written versions in minor ways and major ones (see the editing of the claim about "PJ"). In addition to that, she was quite willing to, if I am being generous, to stretch the truth about how she came to public attention, and about her communications with the committee itself as it tried to get her to commit to appear in person. Now, those "lies" might seem minor, but they showed me someone will to fib a little to try to get what she wanted. However, in the end, she could provide no corroboration for her accusation- it really was just "she said", and not all that specific an accusation either- fuzzy memory on pretty much everything important except "Brett did it".
When I compared this to Kavanaugh's denial, the issue of evidence isn't even close- the witnesses identified by Ford support Kavanaugh's denial in one manner or another. Kavanaugh provide timelines that couldn't be shown to be false, and I am just about 100% certain his calendars are authentic. Now, this didn't prove Ford was lying or misrembering, but then Ford also couldn't even remember what year the attack happened with certainty. Had Ford claimed 1981 or 1984, I bet Kavanaugh has calendars for those years as well. In the end, cruel neutrality has to give the nod to Kavanaugh over Ford based solely on witness support alone.
So, we are left evaluating the way in which each told their story, but here is where I really depart from the Althouse claim of "cruel neutrality"- cruel neutrality wouldn't waste much effort at trying to determine who is telling the truth by the mannerisms because doing so opens one to believing their biases. Cruel neutrality would have stuck to plausibility of the story, and the evidence from witnesses and documentation provided by both. Cruel neutrality would have then given the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
You could argue that you don't want Kavanaugh on the bench for numerous political and philosophical reasons, and I would not criticized those- those are legitimate arguments, but when you try to support your opposition to Kavanaugh because you "felt like Ford told the truth and Kavanaugh lied", then you have most definitely violated "cruel neutrality".
Steve M. Galbraith: "Okay, he's not, for you, a "real" conservative."
I said no such thing.
Nicely played. Very Cory Booker-ish of you.
E.g, what about "Squi"? Ford said he was her boyfriend who introduced her to Kavanaugh. He was at the party (she said). If we find him we might learn more.
She didn't say he was at the party. She said she didn't want him named and he wasn't involved and he wasn't there.
Here's another important point:
The GOP has only a 51-49 edge in the Senate.
If the filibustered existed, the Dems could have used it to stop Kavananugh.
And then several GOP-types would have flirted with banning the filibuster, but a few sensible Republicans would have likely woulda balked.
But, in 2013, with brilliant foresight, Democrat Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid dropped the filibuster for federal judges below the Supreme Court to send 4 judges to the DC Court of Appeals.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Harry. After the Dems lost the Senate in 2014, the GOP dropped the filibuster for all courts.
And, that's where we are today.
From prep school 1974-1976, girls' dorm edition:
Boof = fart. If you inadvertently boofed, you promptly blamed it on barking spiders.
The Dems must be beaten so badly that they know they are defeated. GOP winning both houses in 2018 and Trump wins 40 states in 2020 might finally convince them they are beaten. But they are like ISIS in their religious belief of their righteousness.
I agree with Dave Begley. I am sending money to the campaigns of every Republican senatorial candidate where the race is at all close: McSally in Arizona, Cruz in Texas, Heller in Nevada, Rosendale in in Montana, Cramer in North Dakota, Karin Housley in Minnesota, Braun in Indiana, Hawley in Missouri, Blackburn in Tennessee, Hugin in New Jersey, Scott in Florida, and even Vukmir in Wisconsin (who’s more of s long shot, but s get couragroud woman that deserves support). I’m going to wait and see how Manchin votes on Kavanaugh; if he votes against Kavanaugh then he’ll be vulnerable. Wife and I are retired so it won’t be a lot, but I know from past GOP campaigns that every dollar helps.
Mr. Majestyk said...
Speaking of credibility:
----------------------
You forgot #6... Her renovation was in 2008, not 2012
I don't think history is going to be kind to Ford- there are a lot of talented journalists out there on the conservative side who will start digging into her past and present. All that social media that was deleted will be surfaced at some point. I think the Republicans in the Senate might well have already done a lot of the work, but chose to not use the information yesterday because it would have looked bad optically. Once Kavanaugh is confirmed or defeated, that reticence no longer applies.
"He was at the party (she said)."
Nope. He was not. Try again.
If that is perjury then it undermines all the rest of his testimony.
Do we have a new troll ?
I expected him to say, his BAC might have been above the legal limit when asked about "Too many beers."
There is NO evidence for any of the Ford accusations. More of her lies are emerging today.
I think Ann needs a new tag: Cruel Neutrality bullshit
Althouse: “I'm not going to dilute my brand [cruel neutrality]. I don't have something else I want to do or could do as effectively.”
Oh my! We do have a little self awareness problem here, don’t we?
Yancy- She has homes in two of the most beautiful places in the country, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz. She's traveled to French Polynesia. She has wealthy friends who are of the left. She doesn't' need history to be kind to her.
when you try to support your opposition to Kavanaugh because you "felt like Ford told the truth and Kavanaugh lied", then you have most definitely violated "cruel neutrality".
Ford's handlers did not anticipate the calendars. That was a huge mistake. People who knew him well at the time might have known about them.
The lie about the remodel is the hardest one to excuse.
Flake wants a one week delay on a floor vote for an FBI investigation. Whimp!
Flake has already been told that if he doesnt call for a delay he can kiss his MSNBC and CNN Contributor contract goodbye.
You leftists should be so, so proud of your idiocy on full display yesterday.
Well done.
Althouse writes:
"But Whitehouse only asked us to agree that if Ford's allegations are true, he should not serve on the Court, and I will agree to that..."
Why? Is it because if Ford's allegations are true, it means that the 2018 Judge Kavanaugh lied while under oath in his confirmation hearing? Or is it because the nature of what Ford alleged was so disqualifying?
I am interested in Althouse's answer to this question; What if Kavanaugh had testified, "I remember that night. Yes, I was a bit drunk, but I remember it very well. I pushed her onto a bed and said I was going to feel her up. I thought she might like it. But Mark was there, and he jumped on the bed and we all fell to the floor laughing. The whole thing lasted less than a minute. And now, I'm sorry about it and feel bad, and if I had seen Dr. Ford back then I would hope that in the following days I would have apologized to her. But we never saw each other since we really weren't in the same circle of friends. So I never saw here again."
If that were the answer, and even if you still chose to believe all of Ford's details, would that disqualify Kavanaugh? I am really curious, Althouse, which of Kavanaugh's alleged offenses (teenaged sex assault, or 2018 lying under oath) do you believe to be disqualifying?
For my part, if the true answer from Kavanaugh was (and I certainly don't know what the true answer should have been), "Yeah, there was some sexually-charged roughhousing that we did, with all of our clothes on..." Then I would absolutely have voted to confirm him, notwithstanding. Even given Ford's testimony.
In other words, Ford's testimony, even assuming it was true, was never enough in my view to disqualify Judge Kavanaugh.
I'm a few years younger than Kavanaugh, and I remember boof being defined back in the 80s as in the definition Prof. Althouse posted. And I had not heard that term used since then, not that that means anything. The definition I saw trending was, as defined at UD, "abuse any licit or illicit substance via insertion into one's rectum." How it was meant, anybody's guess.
Off topic, there was a MLB pitcher named Boof Bonser, who was part of the Twins' heist for AJ Pierzynski years ago, along with Francisco Liriano and Joe Nathan.
I hope in another couple years someone does the hard investigative journalism work(with the of some inside sources) the actual plan that was put in place long before the 1st set of hearings.
Everything has felt so choreographed.
And Jeff Flake continues the GOPe, RINO, LLR tradition and gives Democrats what they want.
"But Whitehouse only asked us to agree that if Ford's allegations are true, he should not serve on the Court, and I will agree to that."
I won't. Ford's "allegations" are to the effect that a boy she insists was Kavanaugh climbed on top of her and put his hand over her mouth. I have climbed on top of women, and put my hand over their mouths too, and even grabbed them by the pussy. And they seemed to like it just fine at the time. So no, I don't agree that if they later decide it was the most horrible thing that ever happened to them and ruined their lives, I have been thereby been transmogrified into an ogre unfit for human society.
(eaglebeak)
But Whitehouse only asked us to agree that if Ford's allegations are true, he should not serve on the Court, and I will agree to that. The question remains whether Ford's allegations are true, and Whitehouse is using Kavanaugh's testimony about the meaning of "boofed" and "Devil's triangle" to attack his credibility. If we think he lied under oath about that, then it's more likely that he lied about other things, including his denial of Ford's allegations.
If we think he lied under oath about that?
How would we reach that determination? Better call the FBI.
Douthat makes some surprising points for a columnist at the NYT. However what he wants, beside a delay (surprise! surprise!), is a trial. Is there any cognizant human being here that believes that any kind of trial could be held after 36 years? Douthat wants a further delay. He dresses it up nicely, but that's his objective.
If one accepts my analysis that Ford is a sociopath, then we've heard all we need from her. Does anyone think that she - or her lawyers - scrubbed her various social media accounts because they were going to prove her sanity or fitness to testify?
"Feinstein looks like a woman filled with regret"
She did look pretty miserable at the interrogation. Not just age -- maybe a hint of a conscience.
See, Althouse, Sullivan shows you how it's done.
He didn't start out pro-K, but he kept a neutrally open mind -- and a rant followed. Could have been an Althousian deconstructive fisking.
But no such thing, and that's the tell.
Althouse, which of Kavanaugh's alleged offenses (teenaged sex assault, or 2018 lying under oath) do you believe to be disqualifying?
Neither. His two disqualifying offenses are being too perfect and being a possible fifth vote to overturn Roe.
If the baby talking accuser lied about a fear of flying does that disqualify her entire credibility?
Two thirgs I find incredible: 1) that high school yearbooks are discussed at all, ever, during a confirmation hearing with the expectation that people are supposed to take it seriously instead of laughing at the morons who brought it up, and 2) that Althouse keeps trying to push the boulder up the hill with Ford’s testimony which is impossible to verify because - let’s review now - it lacks any and all concrete details that could ever be proved one way or the other, and therefore the whole question “if it’s true then Kavanaugh should not be confirmed” is a pointless exercise in wishing and hoping.
Read this for a bit of perspective on what's been going on tactically. The Dems have been playing a well known game.
@Danthe Man I am with you. Ann definitely needs to up her self-awareness game. Ann, "I have no bad habits, but some serious biases" Althouse
Two thirgs I find incredible: 1) that high school yearbooks are discussed during a confirmation hearing with the expectation that people are supposed to take it seriously instead of laughing at the morons who brought it up, and 2) that Althouse keeps trying to push the boulder up the hill with Ford’s testimony which is impossible to verify because - let’s review now - it lacks any and all concrete details that could ever be proved one way or the other, which therefore renders the whole question “if it’s true then Kavanaugh should not be confirmed” a pointless exercise in wishing and hoping.
Then there is the whole question of memories and eyewitness reports and how shaky they are. Scott Adams is tweeting all kinds of links today about exactly that.
Wait a second, Althouse.
A drunk teenage boy playing at trying to grope a drunk teenage girl in a group setting, stopping well short of what's considered rape at the time, should not 40 years later be permitted this particular job? Should he have been allowed to have *any* job?
Is it the alleged 2 boys vs 1 girl that makes it egregious?
Do we make any allowance for teenagers, boy and girl alike, being more driven by new biology and by a permissive, voluntarily entered, party scene?
How are we to judge the real level of menace+aggression decades removed? Was the laughter harsh, or giggly? If it mattered enough to matter now, it definitely mattered enough to address it then.
If we insist on a standard of behavior that's too high and the only reason we have freedom now is because of the impossibility of proof in more private environments, and we slide into a pervasive technological surveillance regime as tech improves, how will humans ever thrive and feel free?
Of course her memories are bunk. My comment is in the hypothetical space carved out by Althouse when she says he would be disqualified *if*.
Jeff Brokaw said...
"Two things I find incredible: 1) that high school yearbooks are discussed at all, ever, during a confirmation hearing with the expectation that people are supposed to take it seriously..."
Have you forgotten the forged High School Yearbook signature the Democrats used as part of their (eminently successful) attack on Roy Moore? They haven't.
I think we need a panel of professional poker players to evaluate the credibility of yesterday's performance by CBF. Let's say Daniel Negraneau, Jennifer Harmon, Tom Dwan, Texas Dolly and Maria Ho.
One advantage poker players have over inexperienced and untrained "truth detectors" is that they look for a pattern of behavior that indicates a tell. It is how they make their living.
As I posted yesterday, CBF gave numerous tells that a lot of the media did not pick up on. I did not see a single tell from the judge.
I find it incredible that people find CBF's testimony credible.
Was any straight guy going in for anal sex in the 80s? When AIDS was running rampant? When AIDS stood for Anally Injected Death Sentence? Give me a break.
If the Dems demand an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh, the GOP should demand a psychiatric examination of Ford as well as public revelation of all her texts and social media posts. But they won't because they are afraid of female backlash. Maybe they aren't aware of just how many females are appalled at these allegations and proceedings.
I left this site a few years ago because she refused to delete comments by a racist. I came back a while back. Now she's offering this crap. I'm out again.
The Feminist and the Frog
A Feminist and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
Feminist asks the frog to carry her across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The Feminist
says, "Because I'm cruelly neutral."
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the Feminist stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"
Replies the Feminist: "Its my nature..."
Jeff Flake, LLR favorite, is a disgusting shit head.
I also didn't hear Kavanaugh deny drinking -- at times even to excess. But he was highly conscious of his obligations, both scholatically and academically, and kept to a very active schedule so there were very few opportunities when he might have drunk heavily. Exception was beach week. But then he was out of town. I think this was the point of his presenting his calendar.
Regarding Ann's claim of cruel neutrality -- that doesn't ring true for me either because I haven't noticed Ann making any demands that we scrutinize Ford's character. If this case ultimately depends on our opinions and evaluations concerning the character of these two individuals then I would like to know more about Ford. What was she like in high school? Was she a "messed up" kid, what kind of reputation did she have in terms of her personality, her sexual activity, honesty? Was she secretly in love with or obsessed with Kavanaugh? Can we see her diaries or journals? None of these questions were permitted in the hearing, of course; she was not on trial we heard over and over. But to have cruel neutrality means not to give her the benefit of the doubt either. We need to investigate/dissect her at the same level. Very cruel indeed since she was simply intending to share her experience.
Jupiter 2:13pm - yes that was stupid too. And some of us are detecting a pattern here.
I remember bufu from "Valley Girl":
It's really sad
Like my English teacher
He's like...
He's like Mr. BU-FU
We're talking Lord God King BU-FU
I am SO SURE
He's like so GROSS
He like sits there and like plays with all his rings
And he like flirts with all the guys in the class
It's like totally disgusting
I'm like so sure
It's like BARF ME OUT...
Gag me with a spoon!
R.J. Chatt @ 4:43
I find that odd as well. You'd think that the person making the acusation would be under greater scrutiny.Who is this person making these claims? What is her history? How does it overlap his?
And yet, nothing. Not an equally in depth investigation into her.
Which is why her claims can be dismissed out of hand. To anyone with half a working brain cell the democrats have massively beclowned themselves. To the ususal suspects they're heros.
Equipment Maintenance said...
I left this site a few years ago because she refused to delete comments by a racist. I came back a while back. Now she's offering this crap. I'm out again.
9/28/18, 3:05 PM
Who, Cedarford?
Post a Comment