Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?What does that make Republicans? Check this board on ANY given day. Check out the news, both FOX and CNBC. You will find faux outrage everywhere. A SCOTUS nominee being accused of sexual assault though is something that SHOULD cause outrage, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who has no problem blaming a political party and the Clintons for these accusations, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who perjured himself before congress to get the job. These things are objectively bad.There's only one side that's trying to allege the FBI report would be "full of shit." It's not Democrats.NO, it doesn't.
The fbi will go and talk to a lot of people about a lot of stuff that may or may not have happened a long time ago.
They will tell tales, some of which are likely to be bullshit, either completely wrong, or completely irrelevant, yet embarrassing.
This seemed very obvious to me, to the point, I did not spell it out.
It was you libs, that injected accusing the FBI of lying.
Sure. THey want to go on a fishing expedition to find dirt, or failing that, shit they can lie about, to pretend it is dirt.
They WANT it to be full of shit. They WANT shit they can throw. Like monkeys.
Only viler.
A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
Both are stupid.You are right that was a poor choice of words. How do you feel about alternative facts, does that sound less dumb?How do you "make up" facts?Are you suggesting the FBI will make up facts?
God I hate dumbed down people.
The entire letnut press is No One? Members of the judicial committee are No One? Members of this board are No One?Why are you folks starting threads on the one accuser who no one believes and so far as I know all the investigators are ignoring?
So you can by association smear the rest as unbelievable.
-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?What does that make Republicans? Check this board on ANY given day. Check out the news, both FOX and CNBC. You will find faux outrage everywhere. A SCOTUS nominee being accused of sexual assault though is something that SHOULD cause outrage, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who has no problem blaming a political party and the Clintons for these accusations, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who perjured himself before congress to get the job. These things are objectively bad.There's only one side that's trying to allege the FBI report would be "full of shit." It's not Democrats.
Sure. THey want to go on a fishing expedition to find dirt, or failing that, shit they can lie about, to pretend it is dirt.
They WANT it to be full of shit. They WANT shit they can throw. Like monkeys.
Only viler.
A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?What does that make Republicans? Check this board on ANY given day. Check out the news, both FOX and CNBC. You will find faux outrage everywhere. A SCOTUS nominee being accused of sexual assault though is something that SHOULD cause outrage, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who has no problem blaming a political party and the Clintons for these accusations, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who perjured himself before congress to get the job. These things are objectively bad.Sure. THey want to go on a fishing expedition to find dirt, or failing that, shit they can lie about, to pretend it is dirt.
They WANT it to be full of shit. They WANT shit they can throw. Like monkeys.
Only viler.
A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?What does that make Republicans? Check this board on ANY given day. Check out the news, both FOX and CNBC. You will find faux outrage everywhere. A SCOTUS nominee being accused of sexual assault though is something that SHOULD cause outrage, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who has no problem blaming a political party and the Clintons for these accusations, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who perjured himself before congress to get the job. These things are objectively bad.
A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
-And no it isn't relevant. It's still just hearsay.-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?What does that make Republicans? Check this board on ANY given day. Check out the news, both FOX and CNBC. You will find faux outrage everywhere. A SCOTUS nominee being accused of sexual assault though is something that SHOULD cause outrage, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who has no problem blaming a political party and the Clintons for these accusations, the same goes for a SCOTUS nominee who perjured himself before congress to get the job. These things are objectively bad.
A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
Hey AzogtheDefiler and iceberg, where'd ya go?
There's just one problem: the NBC News story leaves out a key detail. Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.
But Kavanaugh didn't find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for The New Yorker asked him for comment.
The testimony matches with that Kavanaugh gave when under oath in front of the Judiciary Committee.
Additionally, Kavanaugh made it clear in his deposition that he was, in fact, communicating with friends, trying to figure out what Ramirez was saying to members of the media, so technically, NBC News's bombshell isn't even ... new.
-And no it isn't relevant. It's still just hearsay.-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?A SCOTUS nominess, being accused of sexual assault, at the last minute, with zero support of any kind,
is not something that should cause outrage.
And the dems deserve blame for the games they are playing with this very suspiciously timed, and utterly unsupported accusation.
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
-The original timing wasn't late. It was when he was put on the shortlist. Again something the FBI will be able to verify by following her testimony. So that's not relevant to the analogy.
- What money? There are easier ways to get your 15 minutes of fame.
It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.
Misogyny on the right is a fascinating phenomenon. Hillary hatred was so intense that to this day mention Hillary, as Kavanaugh oddly did, and the right wing men salivate hate. It is a bizarre and odd reaction as I'm sure most had moms.Why are right wing men so insecure around women that they support a blowhard liar and draft dodger as their hero? Trump would have nothing to do with them either. Kavanaugh came across as guilty for guilty people overly express emotion to hide even from themselves. Conservative snowflakes wake up you are being played as fools.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...-slimed-brett-kavanaugh.711413/#post-20872508
Psychotherapists on Ford's testimony
Here's what experts who study sexual violence say about the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony - Los Angeles Times
Hearing Exposes Brett Kavanaugh Temperament Problem, Credibility Issues
It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.
The sad thing is that he doesn't get it. He sees nothing wrong with what the Dims are doing.hey - you raped someone 2 years ago. i heard all about it. i just can't remember where exactly or who. maybe it was 3 years ago but god damn, you were all over that woman. you even threw some water on her for "fun"!!!!I'm positive you're under 25yoNO...This is a 'You're a f*ing idiot for what you just said - innocent until proven guilty' post.Is this another "leave the poor potential rapist alone" thread ?
there. you're now a potential rapist also.
see how easy this works? what goes around comes around and the gets really bent out of shape when their tactics are used against them.
The Democrats sat on it, that doesn't mean the information wasn't out there. She wrote her representative. That letter is out there and timestamped the FBI can retrieve this. She also wrote the Washington Post again this is timestamped and could be retrieved. It is easily verifiable. This directly contradicts the assertion that Ford concocted her story for his nomination.-And no it isn't relevant. It's still just hearsay.-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.-I'll try to put it in an analogy. Let's say I'm a member of a school board and we need to vote on hiring a particular coach for a girls softball team. My wife comes to me and says a friend of hers says that when he was young he did to her what Kavanaugh is accused of. What should my vote be? I can't verify that he has done it, but if I have other candidates should I not just pick somebody else?
-As to the rest. Ford has given easily verifiable information as to the timing of her coming forward. The timing is BEFORE he was ever nominated. Blaming the Democrats for that accusation therefor is false. Unless of course the information doesn't check out in which case Kavanaugh is exonerated.
-Not only that but doing what he did speaks to bias, something that will actively harm his potential effectiveness if he gets the job.
For your analogy to be a good analogy we need to add a few points.
1. It can't be someone your wife can vouch for. It has to be a complete stranger spreading hearsay.
2. The stranger has to come forward at the last minute for suspicious reasons.
3. The stranger has to have motive to lie.
4. THere has to be a huge movement pushing very strongly against the coach for unrelated reasons.
The information has already NOT checked out. The timing of the accusation was completely the dems fault.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
-The original timing wasn't late. It was when he was put on the shortlist. Again something the FBI will be able to verify by following her testimony. So that's not relevant to the analogy.
- What money? There are easier ways to get your 15 minutes of fame.
1. So, why are you resisting it? If it doesn't matter? Because you know it does matter.
2. And then they sat on it. For months. Months would have allowed an easy and reasonable consideration of the accustion and the complete lack of supporting anything. The FBI will find nothing new on this. There is nothing to find.
3. Go fund accounts listed below. But let's not dismiss the street cred this will give her in the Universities where she works.
VERIFY: GoFundMe pages for Christine Blasey Ford legit?
Inspired here: So here's what I think happened between Kavanaugh & Ford
Did she fight him off hard? Or was she drunk too and giggling/play pushing him off of her?Maybe
But I think it was more than just a dry hump for fun
He tried to remove her clothes but she had a bathing suit on underneath and he gave up
I've seen many drunk girls at parties in the 1980s. I can tell you that a girl going to a party with the intent of getting drunk around a bunch of horny young guys also getting drunk KNOWS the situation she's willingly walking into. Ladies, don't go to bawdy parties with horny young guys getting drunk, get drunk yourself, and then not anticipate some "rubbing up against you" or serious efforts to get into your panties.
Why is nobody talking about how the judge stopped undressing the girl and walked away instead of actually raping her? He showed restraint while young and drunk with a young drunk girl in front of him who came to the party with an inkling that horny young drunk men would be there attentive to her sexual attractiveness?
Come here, come here come here....get away, get away, get away...come here come here come here... etc.
So did he show restraint by stopping, drunk, young, male and horny with a drunk party girl in front of him? Discuss
Neither male coaches or unmarried woman have been accused, my theoretical guy has been. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.It's not a ghost of a rumour. It's a second hand account of sexual assault.None of it is an answer. Should I vote for this guy?-Wether or not someone I personally know vouches for someone spreading something unverifiable should not be relevant. My wife after all could be mistaking.
-You call it suspicious reasons. I don't think someone speaking out about sexual assault years after the event is suspicious. Revenge is a pretty good motive in this case.
-Being sexually assaulted is a good motive to speak up. And if you think the what Ford did, didn't come at great personal cost you are out of your mind. So what motive do you think she has, that overcomes that cost?
-This is maybe the only thing my analogy isn't completely on point. So lets just give you this one.
- So just consider that in my coach analogy the guy is universally considered an dick. Now should I vote for this coach?
1. If your wife vouched, it would be relevant. Unless you discount your wife's opinion. Keep in mind, she could read this.
2. THe timing very late in the nomination process, late enough to be very disruptive, but not late enough to be ignored, and the vote goes on. Suspicious timing.
3. Being famous in a liberal environment for fighting against Evul Republicans, not to mention money.
When all you have is a ghost of a rumor? Of course.
Ford is a first hand account.
Ah. So my responsibility isn't to the students but to the coach? I disagree.
In the end, my responsibility lies with the safety of that girls softball team. If that means that someone qualified misses out on a job for someone else qualified that's to bad for him.
1. Unverifiable hearsay.
2. Using that logic, you why you even considering male coaches? Or unmarried women?
You’ve yet to prove he did anything of the sort.I might be getting a bit cynical but politicians would generally clamber over their dead grandparents to get good news out there.Actually, it sounds more like it has damning evidence in it showing why Kavanaugh shouldn't be a SC justice. If it is helpful towards getting Kavanaugh confirmed, they would have already released it.
No, it doesn't. It sounds like it could be full of utterly unreliable and/or personal shit that has zero relevance.
That is your opinion, based on your political views. You don't know what is in it, so you are automatically assuming it is against Kavanaugh, but if it was favorable or unbiased, it would be in favor of Kavanaugh, and therefore should be released to get the rest of America to get behind Kavanaugh.
It looks like Kav has gone quiet about getting it all out in the open with regard to this. And the right is now passionately mounting a defence of their right not to know. Fucking hypocrites.
Would you like your personal life laid open to the world, Tommy?
I would be astonished if anyone had any interest in it.
But to take your point, there is stuff I look back on and think I could have done it differently. I have had a few beers,swapped a few punches and had a few rows I regret.
But I have never claimed to be an angel, or lied about it to the nation.
The thing is that I think the US would forgive him getting drunk in his teens and making a fool of himself if he had been upfront about it. The attempted rape is another matter.
I would be astonished if anyone had any interest in it.
Why are you folks starting threads on the one accuser who no one believes
I don't believe any of them, and I know no one who does.
Then again, at this point in time I have no Democrats in my life to speak of.
"Then again, at this point in time I have no Democrats in my life to speak of."
Well, thanks for sharing that you have no diversity of thought in your life. That explains your total tunnel vision.and lack of objectivity. Egads!
I live in the most diverse county in the country and no one believes this shit.
