And, there is another of your mistakes. You assume that I would have a position, based on ignorance, in this trivial pseudo combat that you imagine. ............................................................. I am constantly amazed that some people will establish a "position" based on nothing but their attitudes and profound ignorance,
Ok, then. Clarify your remarks. You say you want "details," but you don't specify about what precisely. Well, you do... eventually. Long after a poster addresses the matter of "details," you will "clarify"--some posts later--that you meant details about this and not that. You have done this time and time again. And just within this five page thread. Why not simply say what you intend in the first place? Are you even capable? You're a fucking joke. And I revise my previous statement: I do, in fact, believe that you are remarkably stupid. As to ignorance? I'm sure you read a lot of history; yet, I seriously doubt that you are capable making much sense out of it. You can only but reliably regurgitate factoids, which may or may not have any bearing upon or relevance for whatever is being disgusted. When they do, I'm sure it's simply a coincidence. Edit: And the "analogies" which you so frequently offer up... What was you score on the verbal section of the SAT or GRE? Like, 300, maybe?
Why is who publishing a poll? It's an interesting news topic, bearing as is does on the upcoming elections. Or did you mean why refer to a poll like that in discussing Kavanaugh's nomination? Because the Republican leadership is running the Kavanaugh vetting as a partisan political (Potempkin) operation, and relying on the intimidation factor of their loyal voting base to keep the Republican Congress in line on this guy. Because the normal sources of discussion matter and leverage - FBI investigation reports, background documentation, careful questioning by informed Senators, honest presentations of opinion and philosophy by the nominee, and so forth - are not available. They're among the things missing due to lack of FBI investigation. Something you are doing here - explicitly and willfully. Others are not. Others are reading your position on Kavanaugh's nomination, which consists of adopting an attitude of dispassionate impartiality while 1) demanding "proof" of such matters as partiality and bias (for which there is no such thing as "proof") while willfully ignoring evidence upon which anyone can base an adult judgment. 2) accusing others of rushing to judgment in ignorance on the basis of having projected your own ignorance - both willful (dishonesty, partisan bias, and partiality on the record) and genuine (never heard of doxxing someone as a physical threat?) - unto them. In other words, you are posting the Republican Party media line, as your own opinion.
hahahahahaha Why are you dodging the question? I mean, it's pretty much a yes or no type of question. Yet you cannot even say in the affirmative or the negative that his attempting to rape a woman should disqualify him from the Supreme Court. Instead, you chose to troll. Billvon attempted to drag you back to the question at hand by pointing out the obvious. You know, the obvious you deliberately chose to ignore so you could troll. It is either that, or you are functionally stupid. Having seen you post, however, I don't think this can be put down to mental retardation. Still dodging the question by trolling, you chose to troll some more: Billvon, repeated the question: Do you answer it? Let's see: Which is an astonishing dodge, really. You are literally admitting that you do not know if sexually assaulting someone and attempting to rape them should exclude them from sitting on the Supreme Court. I mean, for most people, the answer would be an instant no. If someone has sexually assaulted another person or tried to rape them, then it would be a foregone conclusion that they should not be sitting anywhere on a Supreme Court bench, let alone any judicial bench. So no, you do not get to complain: You stated your position that you cannot even be sure if having committed sexual assault or attempted to rape someone should exclude them from the bench. The utterly ridiculous thing about the little game you are trying to play here is that it is not new, nor is it original. Stupid? Yes. But not original.
Did anyone bother to make sure it was really the same Brett Kavanaugh at the party as the one being nominated for SCOTUS? How can you possibly know that if it happened 36 years ago? ............................................... LOL
The person who was attacked confirmed it. A Republican operative (Ed Whelan) identified someone else and said "maybe it was him! He was at the party and looks just like Kavanaugh." This is it! all the conservatives crowed. Proof that she just made a mistake. Ford replied quickly. “I knew them both, and socialized with [the other person.] There is zero chance that I would confuse them.” Whelan quickly withdrew his claim.
Looks like the Bilderbergers managed to get to him before he could grab his guns and fight them off. Democratic smear job, perhaps? .............................................. LOL
It was a little more than just a claim, he laid out an extended Twitter thread complete with google maps locations, a floorplan from a random house (borrowed from a Zillow listing), and a completely wackafuckingdoodle "theory" about this alleged Kavanaugh doppleganger--oh, and he even named the guy! But he wasn't "implying" or "insinuating" nothin' about this supposed Kavanaugh look-alike. (They both just look like born-rich, pudgy white assholes to me.): https://mashable.com/article/ed-whe...ugh-innocence-conspiracy-theory/#CO.qAaoTjaqk <<< (Sorry, it's a mashable link. But it was the most thorough outlining of the since deleted thread that I could locate.)
No, actually If I cannot state with certainty that Ford's memory is accurate, then I also cannot state that the memory is false. So I make no claim that the memory of ms. Ford is false. The point is that it is very difficult to corroborate a 36 year old memory. Even if we could see videos of her therapy sessions we may not notice anything that would result in modifying an old memory. Even if we had the opportunity to hear what all 4 people who were there that night had to say, their individual memories may all be different---------------then what? So claiming that the memory is accurate and Claiming that the memory is inaccurate are both folly. (even if someone claims a clear memory of being abducted by a UFO) Would you buy a used car based only on a picture of it's rearview mirror? Are you satisfied with the smidgen of information that has been made available to you? In the best of all possible worlds: ....................................................................(fill in the blank) ......................................................................................... Meanwhile I think that this partisan acrimony serves no one well. And, I do not much care who you are nor what you think you are entitled to: There is no justifiable excuse for assault!
So any excuse possible so you can be ok supporting a potential rapist. This shit is why people don’t report this shit
Anyone know of a link to the text of the ORIGINAL letter she gave to Feinstein? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If Ford's testimony corroborates well with the testimony of other credible witnesses, that lends more credence to the remainder of her account. It should also be easy to prove that she didn't just make something up 10 years later and traumatize herself over it. Did Kavanaugh assault her? Or was he just trying to make her coffee? Golly it sure must be tough to accurately remember them traumatic episodes, especially after 36 years of reliving it every day. It's not like Kavanaugh's going to jail over this, so why should he get the benefit of the doubt if serious, well-substantiated doubts exist?
30 years not ten we have this thing "innocent until proven guilty" ................................... If someone else has a similar complaint then we have something ........................... How much of this is anti-Catholic bias?
Or even 36? Or ? Or ? Or even ? Along with the bastard cousin "Throw enough shite at the innocent and they smell guilty" Guilty because X happened then Y did also Didn't know Trump was a catholic???? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Right because you and yours have treated hillary clinton like that. funny how it only matters when its some asshole you support that it matters. none of it you mean the republican tactics against clinton?
The point is that it shouldn't be too difficult to establish whether Mrs. Ford has a reasonably accurate recollection of those events, assuming she's not deliberately lying, provided she told others about the incident at the time when it allegedly happened. Under those circumstances, it should be relatively easy to rule out the false memory argument. Like I already said, he won't be going to jail over any of this unless someone is able to come up with physical proof, which seems extremely unlikely. You're talking about a guy who's running for the highest judicial position in your country, "not proven guilty" doesn't exactly equate with "impeccable". We already have an esteemed law professor coaching female applicants to dress like pricey escorts in order to get hired by him, and his staff is apparently stacked with wannabe swimsuit models. Sounds like a pretty sketchy dude. Are you saying that the accusations of predatory sexual behaviour are being magnified because he's Catholic? If he was Muslim, you think he'd stand a better chance of getting in? The way I see it, one doesn't have to be biased against Catholics to find it repugnant when one of them wants to translate their views on invisible magic stuff into codified law. Doubly so when that person thinks Thor made different rules for them than everyone else.
