The Unfathomable Depths of Leftists

[Hutch Starskey]

Not a "dangerous sexual predator" but a man with disqualifying flaws.

There are many other eminently qualified candidates who have no such flaws.

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

One has to wonder what excuses, delays and conditions would instantly be demanded if the president were to announce a three day FBI investigation into all this.

Then, of course, there would be the inevitable denunciation of the FBI as an investigative body should they fail to find credible supporting evidence.

Of course none of that happened and there has been no investigation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Lol!

That would be a, “no.”

No that is you got to be kidding. If you aren’t that smart, my telling you isn’t going to help.

^That would be a, "no".

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator. I am not saying anyone is lying however just as with the Clinton accusations there are too many unknowns for anyone other then a partisan nut to believe they are 100% true like the left believes.

We have lots of accusations, no timelines of when, stories where others are claiming the don’t remember or were even there.

If you go back to the early 90’s a lot was discovered about false memory syndrome and until we get real proof with places, dates, times and people even admitting being there and witnessing it, this case seems to follow those same patterns. I am not saying anyone is lying, I’m saying memories are liquid and fluid and can’t be trusted. The second women coming forward had to take days to remember details. She fits the FMS profile.

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator

No.
The allegations were made by Ford. They were released only when she decided she was ready to go public.

The "Democrats" are not behind any of it.

At least you are admitting they were "made up." Ford is a liberal Democrat who has an attorney that works with Soros, that gave the letter to Feinstein. Seems like all were Democrats to me.

 

[Papageorgio]

^That would be a, "no".

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator.

So, that's not just a "no", that's "Hell NO!!!"

That's barely hidden behind fake equitable judgment (I don't say anyone is lying), as it was done for centuries, the fierce determination to give him the job to lord over women for the rest of his life, that is, in effect giving his account, for no reason whatsoever, the benefit of the doubt, while dismissing her account without even the spine to say so outright. That, in turn, exposes the lie behind the whole charade.

As much as you are trying to claim I am passing judgement, I am not. I have known people on both sides of this very issue and in my experience you take the accusation seriously yet to pass judgement is an in justice. So spare me your BS, you have already tried and convicted him with little or no evidence.

 

[hadit]

Yes it does alienate people. You just proved it by saying that sexual assault does not exist in your world. Yet, clearly it exists in our society.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes it does alienate people. You just proved it by saying that sexual assault does not exist in your world. Yet, clearly it exists in our society.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

There is no objective reason to claim the accusation false.

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

I agree, she is credible, the fact her memory is so clear. What hurts her accusation is no one she said was there can remember being there or where there is or when it occurred.

The one thing for me is whether this is a recovered memory in 2012 or if she just never talked about it, that part of the story is very unclear to me. Once this is answered we can make a better decision.

 

[hadit]

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming the accusations have merit. By all accounts, Kav is a very good judge.

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

Illegal drug abuse for which he suffered no consequence, racist attitudes? Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying. And we KNOW it's true because he admitted it. We know nothing of the sort about the allegations against Kavenaugh, especially now that two other men have said they did it.

 

[hadit]

One has to wonder what excuses, delays and conditions would instantly be demanded if the president were to announce a three day FBI investigation into all this.

Then, of course, there would be the inevitable denunciation of the FBI as an investigative body should they fail to find credible supporting evidence.

Of course none of that happened and there has been no investigation.

Just saving time for when the inevitable happens. Now you won't have to repost dozens of hate screeds about how unfair it all is.

 

[bripat9643]

It's he said, she said, 30 years after the facts, this is not about conservative doing anything, other than refusing to let themselves be pressured into destroying an innocent man.

You are an asshole.

How does not appointing him to the supreme Court destroy him?

It's not just having his career ruined, but being branded as a rapist in the Public Eye, and made into a target to the vile dregs of society, ie liberals.

You mean like the right did to Bill Clinton?

You can't get better evidence that what Ken Starr had on Clinton.

There was no evidence of sexual assault, only consensual sex.

He wasn't accused of sexually assaulting Lewinski, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Papageorgio]

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

Illegal drug abuse for which he suffered no consequence, racist attitudes? Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying. And we KNOW it's true because he admitted it. We know nothing of the sort about the allegations against Kavenaugh, especially now that two other men have said they did it.

The double standard is in play. Clinton had far more evidence against him, and they ripped the women. Anyone who doubts Ford is suppressing all abused women. Ellison who has had police reports filed against him is telling the truth the accuser is a liar, questioning Ford is squashing all women's rights and shows hatred toward all women.

George Bush was an alcoholic and should have been impeached, Clinton claimed he "didn't inhale" and that was acceptable. Obama smoking pot and taking cocaine is just a kid experimenting.

The double standard and justification is off the hook nuts.

 

[Faun]

Kavanaugh will not be appointed, Trump should nominate someone more conservative, let the Dems whine and cry, then after that person is not confirmed put up an even more conservative judge, by that time the majority of Americans will see the Democrats as the party of no.

And we’ll be back to the old saying “be careful of what you wish for.”

Also, the Democrats have used the rape issue and it will come back to bite them.

Also, the Democrats have used the rape issue and it will come back to bite them

Where did the"Democrats" do that?

Can you show where Dems made these allegations happen?

Lol!

That's it?

Please if you are as stupid as you are portraying there is no point trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.

What conversation?

You haven't answered yet.

Exactly.

 

[Faun]

How does not appointing him to the supreme Court destroy him?

It's not just having his career ruined, but being branded as a rapist in the Public Eye, and made into a target to the vile dregs of society, ie liberals.

You mean like the right did to Bill Clinton?

Wow. Everything in that statement was wrong.


Bill Clinton was not innocent, and his career was not ruined, and he is still a hero to the dregs of society, ie liberals.

Clinton was not innocent? Who did he rape? Who did he sexually assault?

He sexually harassed Paula Jones, as you well know, among others.

As to rape, the accusation against him by Juanita Brodrick was far more credible than any of the shit you libs have today.



STOP PLAYING STUPID.

Liar.

Paula Jones brought her evidence of sexual harassment to a court of law — and her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

Juanita Broaddrick swore he didn’t rape her.

 

[Faun]

How does not appointing him to the supreme Court destroy him?

It's not just having his career ruined, but being branded as a rapist in the Public Eye, and made into a target to the vile dregs of society, ie liberals.

You mean like the right did to Bill Clinton?

You can't get better evidence that what Ken Starr had on Clinton.

There was no evidence of sexual assault, only consensual sex.

He wasn't accused of sexually assaulting Lewinski, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What accusation of sexual assault did Ken Starr investigate?

 

[Faun]

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

Illegal drug abuse for which he suffered no consequence, racist attitudes? Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying. And we KNOW it's true because he admitted it. We know nothing of the sort about the allegations against Kavenaugh, especially now that two other men have said they did it.

The double standard is in play. Clinton had far more evidence against him, and they ripped the women. Anyone who doubts Ford is suppressing all abused women. Ellison who has had police reports filed against him is telling the truth the accuser is a liar, questioning Ford is squashing all women's rights and shows hatred toward all women.

George Bush was an alcoholic and should have been impeached, Clinton claimed he "didn't inhale" and that was acceptable. Obama smoking pot and taking cocaine is just a kid experimenting.

The double standard and justification is off the hook nuts.

Huh? What evidence other than accusations?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That would be a, “no.”

No that is you got to be kidding. If you aren’t that smart, my telling you isn’t going to help.

^That would be a, "no".

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator. I am not saying anyone is lying however just as with the Clinton accusations there are too many unknowns for anyone other then a partisan nut to believe they are 100% true like the left believes.

We have lots of accusations, no timelines of when, stories where others are claiming the don’t remember or were even there.

If you go back to the early 90’s a lot was discovered about false memory syndrome and until we get real proof with places, dates, times and people even admitting being there and witnessing it, this case seems to follow those same patterns. I am not saying anyone is lying, I’m saying memories are liquid and fluid and can’t be trusted. The second women coming forward had to take days to remember details. She fits the FMS profile.

The accusations against Kavanaugh were brought up by a Democratic Senator

No.
The allegations were made by Ford. They were released only when she decided she was ready to go public.

The "Democrats" are not behind any of it.

At least you are admitting they were "made up." Ford is a liberal Democrat who has an attorney that works with Soros, that gave the letter to Feinstein. Seems like all were Democrats to me.

I said no such thing, liar.
Ford came foreward on her own obviously as no one could have known she existed otherwise.

When you have to lie, your argument is shit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

That she was vague on specifics that would be easier for Kavenaugh to disprove. That no one she's named as corroborative witnesses support her story. That two other men have stepped forward to accept responsibility for the incident she described.

Those weaken her credibility.

Liar.

Ford was very specific and clear on naming Kavanaugh and Judge. That is in no way vague.

What two men are you talking about?

 

[Thinker101]

It's not just having his career ruined, but being branded as a rapist in the Public Eye, and made into a target to the vile dregs of society, ie liberals.

You mean like the right did to Bill Clinton?

Wow. Everything in that statement was wrong.


Bill Clinton was not innocent, and his career was not ruined, and he is still a hero to the dregs of society, ie liberals.

Clinton was not innocent? Who did he rape? Who did he sexually assault?

He sexually harassed Paula Jones, as you well know, among others.

As to rape, the accusation against him by Juanita Brodrick was far more credible than any of the shit you libs have today.



STOP PLAYING STUPID.

Liar.

Paula Jones brought her evidence of sexual harassment to a court of law — and her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.

Juanita Broaddrick swore he didn’t rape her.

Got any more BS?
Juanita Broaddrick Offers To Testify In Kavanaugh Accuser’s Absence

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Exactly. Not a minute of testimony has been heard by anyone. There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible. Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

Name the reasons to think it credible.

I just did in the very post you responded to.

Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized.

1. "Not a minute of testimony has been heard from anyone" :

How the hell is that a reason to find it credible?



2. "There are actually more reasons as to why it may be credible."

That is an assertion, not a reason.


3. "Liars don't typically ask for their allegations to be scrutinized."


Perhaps, but then again, this is not a typical situation.

Not having heard any testimony is a reason that you cannot objectively state that she is not credible. You simply don't know what she has to say.

Given the fact that she definitively identified Kavanaugh, came foreward in spite of the peril to her and her family in doing so and her willingness to have her claims scrutinized all strengthen her credibility. What weakens her credibility in your opinion?

I agree, she is credible, the fact her memory is so clear. What hurts her accusation is no one she said was there can remember being there or where there is or when it occurred.

The one thing for me is whether this is a recovered memory in 2012 or if she just never talked about it, that part of the story is very unclear to me. Once this is answered we can make a better decision.

Having just watched the testimony, there is no way you can claim she wasn't credible.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

[QUOTE
="hadit, post: 20867475, member: 44342"]

You're automatically assuming they have no merit at all. There seems to be quite a few now.

Kavanaugh can both be a very good and competent judge and have a very problematic history as a young man. Both can be true.

The point is, why elevate a man with such questions surrounding him when there are many others with equal qualifications without such questions surrounding them?

The point of this process is to shake out his past and see what comes out. We've seen what comes out. What else will fall out maybe later?

And it means nothing to you that, even if he had problems as a boy, by all accounts he's been an exemplary adult? You're determined that things you're accused of at 17 are to forever dog you and you can never overcome them, no matter what? If that's the standard you want, Obama should never have been president, given his life as a young man.

I would never hire someone to represent me or my business with questions like this surrounding them. Too many unknowns.

Obama never had questions like this surrounding his youth.

He abused drugs and had racist attitudes. The Kavenaugh standard would eliminate him for any high level position.

Sure, smoking weed is exactly the same as sexual assault.


Loser.

Illegal drug abuse for which he suffered no consequence, racist attitudes? Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying. And we KNOW it's true because he admitted it. We know nothing of the sort about the allegations against Kavenaugh, especially now that two other men have said they did it.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, in the new world of the Kavenaugh standard, that's disqualifying.

LOL

Sorry, your "new standard" can't apply a decade ago.


Give it up. Smoking weed is not comparable to sexual assault. It was stupid to even try that.


W was a coke addict, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

One has to wonder what excuses, delays and conditions would instantly be demanded if the president were to announce a three day FBI investigation into all this.

Then, of course, there would be the inevitable denunciation of the FBI as an investigative body should they fail to find credible supporting evidence.

Of course none of that happened and there has been no investigation.

Just saving time for when the inevitable happens. Now you won't have to repost dozens of hate screeds about how unfair it all is.

Inevitable?

Having seen her testimony, you'll be lucky if they can get 50 votes.