I no longer believe the accusers

[Doc1]

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

 

[Doc1]

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

Your opinion is not the standard by which anyone's life should be destroyed. You don't him being a Constitutionalist and that's why you don't want him seated. Innuendo and unproven allegations should not derail a man's life. Well unless of curse you're a partisan hack.

 

[forkup]

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

 

[Tilly]

The fact she couldnt come up with the place,the time,how she got there,how she got home and no corroborating witnesses.
Along with the fact she lied about being afraid to fly and that she'd never talked to anyone about polygraph tests.
Add the fact she claimed her mental problems were brought on by here house remodel in 12 when it actually happened in 08.
This bitch is a walking contradiction and anyone who believes her shit is a partisan fucktard.

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

 

[forkup]

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

Your opinion is not the standard by which anyone's life should be destroyed. You don't him being a Constitutionalist and that's why you don't want him seated. Innuendo and unproven allegations should not derail a man's life. Well unless of curse you're a partisan hack.

Do you care that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of woman getting him on the bench is a slap in the face forcing them to relive their trauma and telling them in no uncertain terms that coming forward against powerful men doesn't pay? Since we are talking about lives being destroyed? Sorry that I don't feel sympathy for the poor little federal judge here.

 

[B. Kidd]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE to PROVE Ford's accusations. So being a "Constitutionalist is being "partial"? You're a bright one aren't you?

No saying you are the victim of a smear campaign by the left and the Clinton's no less. And go on record saying "what goes around comes around" in your PREPARED statement makes you partial. As to the rest. Standard of proof is different for a job interview then it is in a court of law. This was a job interview.

It left the realm of being a job interview the second the Democrats alleged illegal acts. At that point due process kicked in whether you or anyone likes it or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Ford wasn't credible. She's a liar. End of story.

 

[SweetSue92]

Nobody "proved" anything, you simply choose to believe the lies.

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Unlike you, I don't have to pretend.
I asked for proof that Dr. Ford is part of the Resist movement.
I found her online and she's donated all of $80.50 to a Dem candidate, in her entire life.
And participated in one event protesting Trump's cutbacks of $776M to the National Science Foundation.


Now, you go fuck yourself.
.
.
.

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DONATED TO HILLARY CLINTON 10 TIMES, 60+ LIBERAL GROUPS - [your]NEWS

That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.​

Sorry, loser.
Check the site.
It's a blog.
No "About" page identifying the author or sources.
It must really suck to be you.
.
.
.

And your source is absolutely nothing.

It must really suck to be you.

LOL!
Fox News basically corroborated what I said about Dr. Ford, if you actually read it.
.
..
.

Ford is a paid liar...

Prove it.
You people soak in lies so deep your brains are pickled.
.
..
.

 

[forkup]

I'll play this game again.
-Ok, try to remember something really traumatic in your life. What are the chances you'll remember what you had for lunch that day? Or even what the exact date was? Or a hundred of other details? You will however remember the thing that was traumatic very vividly. Chances are you will also remember some inane detail from that day. The point is trying to asses the truthfulness of something like this by what a person can and can't remember is a bad way to go about it.
-Equally bad is trying to go by the fact that corroboration is hard to come by. Going by her testimony there are only 3 people who had a reason to remember this particular party. Two of them committed a crime and the third is a victim. No reason to assume the two culprits would have corroborated there own behavior.
-Third her fear of flying. This argument at best shows that political games were played. That doesn't make the accusation less credible. But also on merit it fails, since people often do stuff their afraid of. It's called courage and courage usually doesn't imply untruthfulness.
-Fourth the polygraph. The name of the boyfriend wasn't released, nor does it mean the polygraph was rigged. The only thing it might mean that in the past she helped a friend. If an inconsistency is the standard you need to dismiss the allegations, then I have news for you. Several NON anonymous witnesses came forward openly saying that Kavanaugh outright lied about his drinking habits. Why does that not prompt you to dismiss his testimony?

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

How can an accusation be credible when there’s nothing to back it up and even her own witnesses, including a friend, don’t corroborate any part of her story?
FFS!

Her friend actually issued a statement she believed Ford. She simply stated she couldn't remember the incident. As to why it is credible. You have to look at her testimony, asses if she comes over as believable. Hear Kavanaugh speak and do the same. At that point you have to see who you believe. Not for nothing, EVERYBODY including Trump said she was credible.

 

[bripat9643]

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

As to proving her allegations, I don't have to. My standard of proof to not want him on the Supreme court is that the accusations are credible or not. If you would suggest to put him in jail that standard would be beyond reasonable doubt. It's an important distinction.

Your opinion is not the standard by which anyone's life should be destroyed. You don't him being a Constitutionalist and that's why you don't want him seated. Innuendo and unproven allegations should not derail a man's life. Well unless of curse you're a partisan hack.

Do you care that for hundreds of thousands if not millions of woman getting him on the bench is a slap in the face forcing them to relive their trauma and telling them in no uncertain terms that coming forward against powerful men doesn't pay? Since we are talking about lives being destroyed? Sorry that I don't feel sympathy for the poor little federal judge here.

In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who resorts to that argument is a sleazy lying douchebag.

 

[Doc1]

Meaning she couldn't prove shit but you believe her anyway because Kavanaugh is a poo poo head. Good lord.

Meaning I have only her testimony and Kavanaugh's to go by. In my opinion Ford's was more credible, but that could just be my party affiliation. What isn't an opinion is that a Supreme Court justice should be beyond reproach. Kavanaugh isn't. What isn't an opinion is the a Supreme Court justice should at least hold an illusion of impartiality. Kavanaugh doesn't. What isn't an opinion is that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country is not well served if it's members have put themselves open for demands to recuse themselves by their previous actions. Kavanaugh did.

Prove her allegations.
Prove he isn't "impartial".
He isn't beyond "reproach" only because you bought accusations you can't prove and you choose to believe her.
You'll demand recusal over allegations unproven. You are quite the partisan kid.

LOL, people like you tried to destroy his life and you're upset because he came out swinging? Price less. How special you must think you are.

I'm not upset, with what he said. I'm upset that being credible accused of something like this doesn't disqualify someone from getting a promotion. As to us destroying his life. He would still have been a federal judge, he wouldn't go to jail, nor would he be demoted.
I gave this analogy before but I'll give it again. Say I'm on a school board and I have to vote on the hiring of a coach for the girls softball team. The day before the vote my wife tells me, a friend told her he did to her what Ford accused her of. Would that information not disqualify him for the job? Especially if I have 24 other equally qualified people to take his place, as is the case for this seat?

Bad analogy. 36 year old allegations that ONLY surface when his appt came up are spurious at best. She didn't say anything when he worked for Starr.
She didn't anything when Bush apptd him.
She waited until AFTER the proceedings were coming to a close in a last ditch effort to stop it. It was political from the start.
7 FBI background checks and nothing. You find her "credible" because of your politics, nothing more.
65 women supported him in a letter.
All the women that worked for him gave him glowing recommendations.
NONE of her witnesses corroborated her accusations.

It was political from the start. He is guilty because you "feel" he is guilty.

 

[bripat9643]

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DONATED TO HILLARY CLINTON 10 TIMES, 60+ LIBERAL GROUPS - [your]NEWS

That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.​

Sorry, loser.
Check the site.
It's a blog.
No "About" page identifying the author or sources.
It must really suck to be you.
.
.
.

And your source is absolutely nothing.

It must really suck to be you.

LOL!
Fox News basically corroborated what I said about Dr. Ford, if you actually read it.
.
..
.

Ford is a paid liar...

Prove it.
You people soak in lies so deep your brains are pickled.
.
..
.

What is it with the apostrophes on the last three lines of your posts?

 

[forkup]

Again how do you know that, besides your opinion?

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

 

[Doc1]

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER DONATED TO HILLARY CLINTON 10 TIMES, 60+ LIBERAL GROUPS - [your]NEWS

That Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy.

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone. Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillary Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “pussy hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development.​

Sorry, loser.
Check the site.
It's a blog.
No "About" page identifying the author or sources.
It must really suck to be you.
.
.
.

And your source is absolutely nothing.

It must really suck to be you.

LOL!
Fox News basically corroborated what I said about Dr. Ford, if you actually read it.
.
..
.

Ford is a paid liar...

Prove it.
You people soak in lies so deep your brains are pickled.
.
..
.

hell kid, we're still waiting for you to prove Kavanaugh is guilty.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Sorry, loser.
Check the site.
It's a blog.
No "About" page identifying the author or sources.
It must really suck to be you.
.
.
.

And your source is absolutely nothing.

It must really suck to be you.

LOL!
Fox News basically corroborated what I said about Dr. Ford, if you actually read it.
.
..
.

Ford is a paid liar...

Prove it.
You people soak in lies so deep your brains are pickled.
.
..
.

What is it with the apostrophes on the last three lines of your posts?

What is it with the all the lies in yours?
.
.
.

 

[Doc1]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

Yet you haven't won any elections since 2010....go figure.

 

[B. Kidd]

If one cannot prove one assertions said assertions by definition false.

No then they are by definition unproven. There is a difference. I can't proof there is life on other planets, yet that does not mean it's proof that there isn't. It's called an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

He was seated because all you people had were her accusations, you lost.

Sure, we lost. I have a feeling though it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. You now have someone seated on the bench that is on record saying he will not be impartial. You have now seated someone who will be controversial as long as he has the seat. You have now seated someone who will work as a stark reminder to woman what the GOP stands for. It doesn't matter for you, or most other people on the right who posts here. However if there's a better way to alienate independants and make Democrats come out in November I have yet to hear about it.

Reminder: your people didn't need mobilization to come out to the polls. Ours did. Your attack on Kavanaugh did that in spades.

Well done.

You do realize there's more of us then there are of you. The thing that has usually skewed the results is that turnout historically is higher on your side. I think if you guys have a high turnout and we do. Republicans lose.

You lost more independents today than you would admit to.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the presidential historian, drawing an analogy to Kavanaugh's possible confirmation, told a short story on Bill Maher's show last night about how in 1850 a congressman from South Carolina whacked a congressman from Massachusetts across the head with a heavy cane. He became a hero to the South and his supporters all started sporting canes.

This enraged the North so much, to the tipping point of mobilizing the north against the South and slavery and inevitably the creation of the party of Lincoln.

I hope we can do the same, starting in November.

Kavanaugh is all about ending the investigation into Trump, creating law that a sitting POTUS can't be investigated.
Look it up. It's right there in black and white from Kavanaugh's publications.

He didn't just kiss Trump's ring. He sucked on it.
.
.
..

 

[bripat9643]

And your source is absolutely nothing.

It must really suck to be you.

LOL!
Fox News basically corroborated what I said about Dr. Ford, if you actually read it.
.
..
.

Ford is a paid liar...

Prove it.
You people soak in lies so deep your brains are pickled.
.
..
.

What is it with the apostrophes on the last three lines of your posts?

What is it with the all the lies in yours?
.
.
.

I see. The apostrophes are your way of signalling us that you're a dumb asshole.