Vote GOP to end war on your men

[Dragonlady]

Ohhh poor Kavanaugh. He’s the poster boy of white privilege! And his life is “ruined “ ? He became a Supreme Court Justice !

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

 

[Dragonlady]

Ohhh poor Kavanaugh. He’s the poster boy of white privilege! And his life is “ruined “ ? He became a Supreme Court Justice !

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. As for me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

 

[Cecilie1200]

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

Again, your opinion of me is irrelevant, because I don't respect you enough to want your good opinion. You might as well quit wasting time in every single post withholding your approval in the vain hope that it will matter.

Yes, I think your feelings are hurt. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep trying to shame me into pretending you deserve respect.

Just for the record, I stopped reading your delusional attempts at rewriting recent history at the point where you started blithering congratulations at yourself for "tearing my arguments apart". That's not how sane people characterize saying, "No, I'M right, so THERE!" and stamping your feet and pouting, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[bripat9643]

Ohhh poor Kavanaugh. He’s the poster boy of white privilege! And his life is “ruined “ ? He became a Supreme Court Justice !

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

I would love to know what the hell kind of high school these leftists were hanging around in back in the 80s, because I am prepared to state categorically that no one I knew in high school during that era would have so much as mentioned out loud the stuff leftists want to attach as the "official definition" of things. They would have been considered weird and disgusting and been shunned.

I realize that leftists have no long-term memory to speak of, but they really need to wrap their heads around the fact that the 80s was a completely different era from now, and trying to apply modern behavior and attitudes - not to mention slang - to that time makes about as much rational sense as trying to apply modern American cultural standards to the Amish.

I never heard the term "devil's triangle" when I was in high school.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ohhh poor Kavanaugh. He’s the poster boy of white privilege! And his life is “ruined “ ? He became a Supreme Court Justice !

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

I would love to know what the hell kind of high school these leftists were hanging around in back in the 80s, because I am prepared to state categorically that no one I knew in high school during that era would have so much as mentioned out loud the stuff leftists want to attach as the "official definition" of things. They would have been considered weird and disgusting and been shunned.

I realize that leftists have no long-term memory to speak of, but they really need to wrap their heads around the fact that the 80s was a completely different era from now, and trying to apply modern behavior and attitudes - not to mention slang - to that time makes about as much rational sense as trying to apply modern American cultural standards to the Amish.

I never heard the term "devil's triangle" when I was in high school.

I did. It referred to an area of water near China that was similar to the Bermuda Triangle in that ships and planes tend to disappear there.

I don't want to know what it means to leftist fruitcakes now, and I can assure you I would not have wanted to know when I was in high school. The craziest, most promiscuous people I knew in the 80s would have been retching at the kind of thing leftists think was commonly referenced.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From what we’ve witnessed in the last weeks, it’s the GOP war on women: attack, demean, and demonize any woman who makes a good faith claim of sexual assault.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what we’ve witnessed in the last weeks, it’s the GOP war on women: attack, demean, and demonize any woman who makes a good faith claim of sexual assault.

Couldn't tell you. Produce even one woman who's actually making a good-faith, credible claim of sexual assault, and let's see.

 

[Dragonlady]

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

Again, your opinion of me is irrelevant, because I don't respect you enough to want your good opinion. You might as well quit wasting time in every single post withholding your approval in the vain hope that it will matter.

Yes, I think your feelings are hurt. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep trying to shame me into pretending you deserve respect.

Just for the record, I stopped reading your delusional attempts at rewriting recent history at the point where you started blithering congratulations at yourself for "tearing my arguments apart". That's not how sane people characterize saying, "No, I'M right, so THERE!" and stamping your feet and pouting, but whatever floats your boat.

Ah yes, you keep responding only to insult me, and you're not reading because my responses have any substance. I am never afraid to read an opinion which differs from mine. Who are you trying to convince? Who is being delusional here? I respond to you because you make some valid points, but only from a partisan point of view, and only by putting on blinders to the obvious limitations of your arguments.

Kavenaugh is too partisan to sit on any top level court and he's been groomed since law school to take the court in a certain direction. That he was prepared to lie his way through the nomination process to get there is something that can't be disputed. The ONLY reason he was nominated at all was to shield your criminal President from prosecution and indictment. You know that's true.

This nomination cost Republicans the House. Now you get to see just what a bad deal maker this President really is, and how far his staff are prepared go to keep him from capitulating completely to Pelosi, Shumer, and the Democrats.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

Again, your opinion of me is irrelevant, because I don't respect you enough to want your good opinion. You might as well quit wasting time in every single post withholding your approval in the vain hope that it will matter.

Yes, I think your feelings are hurt. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep trying to shame me into pretending you deserve respect.

Just for the record, I stopped reading your delusional attempts at rewriting recent history at the point where you started blithering congratulations at yourself for "tearing my arguments apart". That's not how sane people characterize saying, "No, I'M right, so THERE!" and stamping your feet and pouting, but whatever floats your boat.

Ah yes, you keep responding only to insult me, and you're not reading because my responses have any substance. I am never afraid to read an opinion which differs from mine. Who are you trying to convince? Who is being delusional here? I respond to you because you make some valid points, but only from a partisan point of view, and only by putting on blinders to the obvious limitations of your arguments.

Kavenaugh is too partisan to sit on any top level court and he's been groomed since law school to take the court in a certain direction. That he was prepared to lie his way through the nomination process to get there is something that can't be disputed. The ONLY reason he was nominated at all was to shield your criminal President from prosecution and indictment. You know that's true.

This nomination cost Republicans the House. Now you get to see just what a bad deal maker this President really is, and how far his staff are prepared go to keep him from capitulating completely to Pelosi, Shumer, and the Democrats.

No, actually, I keep responding to say that you have nothing. You don't even have an accurate memory of the last month.

Summarizing by saying that must mean you're a gullible imbecile is just a happy little perk I give myself.

 

[Dragonlady]

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

Again, your opinion of me is irrelevant, because I don't respect you enough to want your good opinion. You might as well quit wasting time in every single post withholding your approval in the vain hope that it will matter.

Yes, I think your feelings are hurt. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep trying to shame me into pretending you deserve respect.

Just for the record, I stopped reading your delusional attempts at rewriting recent history at the point where you started blithering congratulations at yourself for "tearing my arguments apart". That's not how sane people characterize saying, "No, I'M right, so THERE!" and stamping your feet and pouting, but whatever floats your boat.

I haven't offered any opinion you. I don't know you and have no basis for an opinion. I've merely reflected that when people offer their opinions on people they don't know, it's usually and indication and a reflections of their own shortcomings and insecurities. Before you can respect others, you have to respect yourself.

The "I'M right so THERE!" has been your argument throughout, and it's still your argument.

 

[bripat9643]

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

And YOU have zero evidence that it didn't happen exactly as Dr. Ford said it did. The FACT that Kavanaugh's best friend refused to testify on his behalf is practically an admission that it happened. If it didn't happen, why didn't he testify?

Last but not least, what I didn't do was to call the person I was responding to a vulgar and demeaning name, or rather what you consider to be a vulgar and demeaning name. When you call someone a name, it's not a reflection of their character, but of yours.

You seem to see yourself as a worthless twat. Such self-relfection is seldom wrong.

Well, actually, that's not true (I know, big shock that something coming out of YOUR mouth is incorrect and clueless). Gr1) anted, the accused doesn't HAVE to have any evidence, because only a complete moron (you know, like virtually any left-leaning person in the country, and I AM looking at you) thinks that proving a negative is a thing. I mention this only so that you have some chance of understanding just how shocking and meaningful it is that in THIS case, the accused actually has more proof of a negative than the alleged "victim" has of her accusation. That's freaking amazing.

So let's start at the top of your "I'm an idiot, and I'm PROUD of it! Pretend I'm not a joke!" list of confusion and misunderstanding, shall we?

1) Mark Judge did not "refuse to testify". He stated that he did not wish to appear in person before the committee, but he did provide a written statement under oath, which legally qualifies as a testimony. And since, so far as I know, he wasn't actually ASKED to appear before the committee, it's pretty hard to "refuse" a request which hasn't even been made.

Had you bothered to use your Internet connection for anything more than receiving your talking points memos and then trumpeting your half-baked, lame assumptions as fact, you would know that Mr. Judge suffers from anxiety along with other health problems, and he avoids going out in public. No matter how badly you want to pretend that he's "hiding something" or "avoiding his knowledge of guilt", he has actually done more than has been officially requested of him, and his behavior has nothing to do with JUSTICE Kavanaugh, and everything to do with his own personal health. If you for a second whinged about how Ford should be able to spout accusations and then be excused from testifying to them because of her apocryphal "fear of flying", then you have shit to say about Mark Judge's desire to avoid appearing in person.

2) While we're on the subject of best friends and your utter ignorance of whether or not they backed up the person's story, let's discuss the fact that FORD'S best friend from high school didn't just decline to support her story, she categorically REFUTED it. In no uncertain terms. That's not just a lack of evidence on Ford's part; that's NEGATIVE evidence. In fact, that was the pattern for Ford's case all the way through: not only did she have not a shred of evidence, every pathetic attempt she made at providing evidence ended up going against her.

3) JUSTICE Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had not only Ford's own witnesses to support his contention and the statement of Mark Judge, he ALSO was able to provide hard evidence of the things he did the entire summer in question. That's not entirely exclusionary, of course, but given that it's at least SOMETHING, and Ford had absolutely nothing except her word for it (and her word for it was ridiculously vague and lacking specifics), that means he had vastly more evidence than she did.

4) Last but not least, if all you've got is, "I'm right because you're mean and refuse to treat me with respect I don't deserve", then may I invite you cordially to go snivel somewhere else? If you get described in ways you don't like, consider the possibility that you should stop earning the description. Furthermore, I wouldn't WANT the likes of you to approve of my character, because anyone who's still trying to argue in favor of Christine Ford knows less about character judgement than my dog does about quantum physics.

You get the respect you deserve. And you deserve to be told you're a partisan dimwit.

Again your insults are more reflective of your own self-image and self worth, rather than an accurate assessment of someone you neither know or have spoken to. And if you think my feelings are in any way hurt or insulted by the pettiness of a self-profession "partisan dimwit", your could not be more mistaken.

I'm such a dimwit that I'm tearing your partisan defence of the indefensible behaviour of a candidate who should never have been confirmed to the SC. It's not just me saying it. It's law professors from the top legal schools in the world, and his fellow judges who are saying this.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

As usual, your post is full of wishful thinking, half truths and outh and out lies. Your opinion is based on partisanship, and lies: Brett Kavenaugh's lies. You keep going back to the lack of evidence as if that's a reason to believe Kavenaugh's. What did Dr. Ford have to gain by lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. She lost a lot in coming forward. She passed a lie detector test. Kavenaugh wouldn't even take one.

And then there was Kavenaugh's "evidence". His letter from 65 women he knew in high school, who he did not sexually molest, testified that he never molested them, which he produced within minutes of Dr. Ford's allegation becoming public. He knew it was coming. He was prepared. If he wasn't guilty, it would never have occurred to him to be prepared. As for his creep calendar, it actually SUPPORTS Dr. Ford's version of events since it talks about having beers with two of the people Dr. Ford says was at that house.

Brett's buddy did not say that "it never happened", in his letter to the Senate. He says he "doesn't remember". Big difference. What he doesn't say is that no such thing had ever happened, and what multiple other witnesses have said, is that such things happened a lot. And before you try and tell me they didn't, I was at parties where stuff like this happened. A lot of them. Including high school dances, football games, and house parties. It's why I never had a drink at any of these parties. There was always some girl who was "drunk and putting out for the boys" at these

Kavenaugh lied about a lot of things in this confirmation hearing . This is another fact which you keep choosing to ignore. He displayed extreme partisanship and vicious animus towards the Democratic senators, the like which should have disqualified him from the court, as the Founders were very firm that partisanship was disqualifying for those who serve the judicial branch.

This isn't a court of law, this is a he said/she said. The evidence strongly favours Dr. Ford. Character favours Dr. Ford. In the winners/losers category of who is most needing and likely to lie, Brett Kavenaugh wins hands down. The culmination of his life's work is within his grasp, if she isn't believable. Strong motivation to lie. And with his history of lying and his over the top outraged "performance", he gave it all he had, but it was fake.

Since neither you nor I were in that room, neither of us knows for sure who is lying. I'm not going to insult your intelligence with petty insults, as you have done. It's not my Supreme Court and will have no impact on my life or my country. So no, I'm not a partisan hack, nor do I really care one way or another how Donald Trump destroys America, but I do have concerns that he is.

You seem to think he's doing a good job. You're being conned. Trump is working with Putin to destory the United States and make as much money as possible for themselves, while doing so. Me, the day after the mid-terms, Session is gone, the Dems have the House, and I'm going to stock up on

Again, your opinion of me is irrelevant, because I don't respect you enough to want your good opinion. You might as well quit wasting time in every single post withholding your approval in the vain hope that it will matter.

Yes, I think your feelings are hurt. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep trying to shame me into pretending you deserve respect.

Just for the record, I stopped reading your delusional attempts at rewriting recent history at the point where you started blithering congratulations at yourself for "tearing my arguments apart". That's not how sane people characterize saying, "No, I'M right, so THERE!" and stamping your feet and pouting, but whatever floats your boat.

I haven't offered any opinion you. I don't know you and have no basis for an opinion. I've merely reflected that when people offer their opinions on people they don't know, it's usually and indication and a reflections of their own shortcomings and insecurities. Before you can respect others, you have to respect yourself.

The "I'M right so THERE!" has been your argument throughout, and it's still your argument.

Why would any sane person respect a lying douchebag like you?

 

[Dragonlady]

Ohhh poor Kavanaugh. He’s the poster boy of white privilege! And his life is “ruined “ ? He became a Supreme Court Justice !

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

I would love to know what the hell kind of high school these leftists were hanging around in back in the 80s, because I am prepared to state categorically that no one I knew in high school during that era would have so much as mentioned out loud the stuff leftists want to attach as the "official definition" of things. They would have been considered weird and disgusting and been shunned.

I realize that leftists have no long-term memory to speak of, but they really need to wrap their heads around the fact that the 80s was a completely different era from now, and trying to apply modern behavior and attitudes - not to mention slang - to that time makes about as much rational sense as trying to apply modern American cultural standards to the Amish.

I never heard the term "devil's triangle" when I was in high school.

I did. I also read it in popular literature. What I had never heard before Kavenaugh, was "Devil's Triangle" referred to as a "drinking game". It always referenced a woman's public hair. And Renata - the woman referred to in the "Renata Alumni" photo, was deeply offended by the caption of that photograph. She had signed Kavenaugh's good conduct letter and considered herself their friend.

 

[Lysistrata]

There is some weirdo idea that men are to be believed and women, not. And this does NOT include all men by a long shot. Wow! I'm a white woman and I just voted for three white heterosexual men this morning and I'm waiting around to see the election results!

Really? WHERE does that weirdo idea exist outside of your own diseased imagination?

I realize that your genitals are literally the most interesting thing about you, such that they apparently are the entirety of your identity. Nevertheless, would it shock you to know that that is not the case with other people? That, in fact, most of us are complex individuals who each have a unique combination of multiple good and bad points, irrespective of our genitalia? Yes, even women. We are fully capable of being lying, scuzzy assholes just as much as men are. And men are just as capable of being decent, honest individuals as women are. Even more shocking, skin color has even less to do with this than genitalia does. Who knew?

So if you believed Ford just because she has a vagina, and you disbelieved Kavanaugh because he has a penis, then that's just your personal insanity. It has jack squat to do with reality.

I did not believe Ford simply because she has a vagina. The evidence is more on her side. I don't know why you hate people with vaginas when you have one yourself. Why do you suck up to the penis agenda?

The evidence is more on her side? What evidence is that? The fact that Donald Trump appointed him, therefore he must be guilty of anything and everything you want to accuse him of? Because that's literally the only actual fact in play here. She didn't succeed PRECISELY because she had no evidence to support her accusation.

I don't hate people with vaginas. I hate people who ARE vaginas, and nothing else. You know how I can tell that you're nothing but a twat on legs? The fact that you use phrases like "penis agenda". I'm pretty sure you're so obsessed with "I have a vagina, and everything is about that!" because YOU hate being female.

I use phrases like "penis agenda" to point out, as I keep reading on USMB in entries about transgenders, that some dorks think that your body determines who you are. There are males out there who use their specific genitalia to justify making all of the decisions and bossing everyone else around.

I was not lying when I wrote about seeing a local interview with some southern baptist penis boy, who openly bragged that his penis gave him decision-making authority. He did everything but unzip. I did not make this up. The shame is that some people with vaginas support their local dick no matter. These women lack the dignity and self-esteem to limit this and grovel instead. How humiliating for all of us.

Look. I like penises (peni?). I like borrowing one occasionally. I love my hairy honey. But why the dick worship?

I don't give a rat's fat, furry ass what rationalization you have for using idiotic phrases like "penis agenda". You used it; you're far too obsessed with gender. Get the hell over it.

. . . Aaaaaand we're done.

There are ill and aggressive men in our society who are going after women and girls for no rational reason, and what these guys are doing must be exposed to the public. Their entire explanation for their actions is that they are entitled to do so and exploit the sexuality of others because of their possession of a penis.

One has to use language that effectively communicates what the issue all boils down to and gets people to think about, while denying the perps the opportunity to sugar-coat it and cover it all up with fairy tales and reducing the ability of these guys to recruit youngsters into this lifestyle before the kids have an opportunity grow up and see something of the world.

Genitalia is the great definer here. Believe me, I wish it wasn't. That you are encouraging this is beyond comprehension.

 

[bripat9643]

They tried to ruin his life. Do you really think he would find other success elsewhere if they had managed to torpedo his nomination?

They tried to ruin his life. Maybe if Kavenaugh's parents had taught him to treat women with respect instead of referring to them as the "devil's triangle", instead of something there for his pleasure. Maybe if they had taught him lying is wrong. Maybe if he had learned not to get drunk and molest girls at some point in his youth, no one would have had the opportunity to "ruin his life".

Kavenuagh is the author of his own misfortune. The lies, the cover-ups.

You have zero evidence that "devil's triangle" means anything but what he said it means.

You have ZERO evidence he ever got drunk and molested anyone.

You are assuming everything, and you are a worthless twat hack.

I would love to know what the hell kind of high school these leftists were hanging around in back in the 80s, because I am prepared to state categorically that no one I knew in high school during that era would have so much as mentioned out loud the stuff leftists want to attach as the "official definition" of things. They would have been considered weird and disgusting and been shunned.

I realize that leftists have no long-term memory to speak of, but they really need to wrap their heads around the fact that the 80s was a completely different era from now, and trying to apply modern behavior and attitudes - not to mention slang - to that time makes about as much rational sense as trying to apply modern American cultural standards to the Amish.

I never heard the term "devil's triangle" when I was in high school.

I did. I also read it in popular literature. What I had never heard before Kavenaugh, was "Devil's Triangle" referred to as a "drinking game". It always referenced a woman's public hair. And Renata - the woman referred to in the "Renata Alumni" photo, was deeply offended by the caption of that photograph. She had signed Kavenaugh's good conduct letter and considered herself their friend.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

Really? WHERE does that weirdo idea exist outside of your own diseased imagination?

I realize that your genitals are literally the most interesting thing about you, such that they apparently are the entirety of your identity. Nevertheless, would it shock you to know that that is not the case with other people? That, in fact, most of us are complex individuals who each have a unique combination of multiple good and bad points, irrespective of our genitalia? Yes, even women. We are fully capable of being lying, scuzzy assholes just as much as men are. And men are just as capable of being decent, honest individuals as women are. Even more shocking, skin color has even less to do with this than genitalia does. Who knew?

So if you believed Ford just because she has a vagina, and you disbelieved Kavanaugh because he has a penis, then that's just your personal insanity. It has jack squat to do with reality.

I did not believe Ford simply because she has a vagina. The evidence is more on her side. I don't know why you hate people with vaginas when you have one yourself. Why do you suck up to the penis agenda?

The evidence is more on her side? What evidence is that? The fact that Donald Trump appointed him, therefore he must be guilty of anything and everything you want to accuse him of? Because that's literally the only actual fact in play here. She didn't succeed PRECISELY because she had no evidence to support her accusation.

I don't hate people with vaginas. I hate people who ARE vaginas, and nothing else. You know how I can tell that you're nothing but a twat on legs? The fact that you use phrases like "penis agenda". I'm pretty sure you're so obsessed with "I have a vagina, and everything is about that!" because YOU hate being female.

I use phrases like "penis agenda" to point out, as I keep reading on USMB in entries about transgenders, that some dorks think that your body determines who you are. There are males out there who use their specific genitalia to justify making all of the decisions and bossing everyone else around.

I was not lying when I wrote about seeing a local interview with some southern baptist penis boy, who openly bragged that his penis gave him decision-making authority. He did everything but unzip. I did not make this up. The shame is that some people with vaginas support their local dick no matter. These women lack the dignity and self-esteem to limit this and grovel instead. How humiliating for all of us.

Look. I like penises (peni?). I like borrowing one occasionally. I love my hairy honey. But why the dick worship?

I don't give a rat's fat, furry ass what rationalization you have for using idiotic phrases like "penis agenda". You used it; you're far too obsessed with gender. Get the hell over it.

. . . Aaaaaand we're done.

There are ill and aggressive men in our society who are going after women and girls for no rational reason, and what these guys are doing must be exposed to the public. Their entire explanation for their actions is that they are entitled to do so and exploit the sexuality of others because of their possession of a penis.

One has to use language that effectively communicates what the issue all boils down to and gets people to think about, while denying the perps the opportunity to sugar-coat it and cover it all up with fairy tales and reducing the ability of these guys to recruit youngsters into this lifestyle before the kids have an opportunity grow up and see something of the world.

Genitalia is the great definer here. Believe me, I wish it wasn't. That you are encouraging this is beyond comprehension.

What is it that you think she's encouraging, the truth? Ford is a proven liar. That's the bottom line. I hope the new AG indicts her for perjury, and also all those sleazy lying Dim Senators on the justice committee.