In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Now we're getting somewhere. I contend she IS an antelope, and barz can not prove that she isn't.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Whether criminal or civil the accuser, be it prosecutor or plaintiff, bears the burden of proving their case - "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" or "by a preponderance of the evidence". To suggest the accused must disprove the case of the accuser is of course deliberate misdirection. It may be expeditious to do so, for the accused to affirmatively prove the accuser's position is untenable as a matter of fact or law, but it's not required. And it ought not be, unless we prefer to dispose of the presumption of innocence mantra that has served us reasonably well for a few hundred years. Some seem inclined to do so because they disapprove of certain players or causes.
Thus far the accuser's timing, affiliations and that any "evidence" is self generated and uncorroborated, doesn't speak well of her case. That a person believes something happened doesn't make it so.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
I don't know who is wrong or right. The timing certainly is interesting. Democrats sure backed off criticizing Senator Feinstein for bringing it out later, when a follow up nomination is impossible to get through before the mid-terms, rather than sooner when Republicans could recover. I hope whomever questions the accuser does so as vigorously as will be done to the accused. No quarter should be given based on sympathy, nor deference shown based on sensitivity to the supposed offense. Other than whatever decorum is needed to not overtly offend the public and damage their position.
I'm amazed this is still going on with the same people.
Anyone remember Clarence Thomas?
Anita Hill told about the pubic hair and that was it.
She presented no relevant information and Thomas was confirmed.
As long as President Trump does not withdraw the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
The lefturds will do any thing, crime, propaganda they deem necessary and "righteous". Its OK to break the laws you do not like.[;)]
cnn and their fellow suck bag demoncraps keep proving it every day.
Most prosecutors who go to court with this kind of or lack of evidence will be lucky to escape with small chunks of their * left intact. If the democrats can?t set up a fraud on the court any better than this, they would be better off being honest.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
Over something that happened in high school?
No, he will be toast for his public denials should the allegations prove to be true.
Evidence might include providing the details to a health care provider during therapy 6 years ago.
And do tell, what is the standard of proof that will convict him Barz?
What type of proof will shut this down? How do you prove something didn't happen?
Just the nature of it is proof enough it didn't happen in my eyes, what are your thoughts or opinion on if he is guilty or innocent and what would convince you?
Since this is not a criminal case, he will not be convicted of anything.
And you can take as "proof" whatever you want.
I have already told you what may be a factor in judging the preponderance of the evidence.
A polygraph may also be useful in determining credibility.
POLYGRAPH!! Yea, that won't happen to her because she is a complete sham. I will bet you a c-note to that will NEVER happen. Taker? or just more smoke from the Halloween H2O machine?
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
And so you don't have any facts regarding the alleged incident, either.
Both Kelly Ann Conway and POTUS say they need to give a hearing to the claims.
Perhaps they should.
We'll see !
You are killing me with your total foolishness and horse blinders you have on. [:o)]
Well hell, I have misjudged the young lady. The only reason she wrote the letter was she ?felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.?
As soon as I locate Jane Fonda and confess to her I?ve been in love with her for fifty years, I?ll try to locate what?s her name and apologize to her for misjudging her so badly. What a brave and civic minded young lady.
Democrats had this information in July but waited until right before the vote to bring it up.
The judge who has by the accounts of dozens of people (women) he has worked with and those he has dated say he is an impeccable person
A woman, an admitted progressive who's parents were the defendants in a foreclosure in which the Judge's mother was the judge and who's brother is a lawyer with a firm involved in creating the Russian collusion witch hunt is accusing him of something to which there is no evidence at all about an event 35 years ago that can not in anyway be proven one way or another and all of this was not planned as partisan liberal intentions to find a way around the legal process to confirm or not a supreme court judge.
And we should believe them? Besides Barz who is till blubbering about his girl losing
Sounds right
If this ploy works there will never be another male on the SCOTUS
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
It crossed my mind if the coming Monday hearing set by Senate is done as usual each has a turn to question this Ford lady Dems will walk her through with softballs and the pusseyfied Rhinos will give her a few hardball questions. But if you could temporarily have someone from the house question her Trey Gowdey would be the one to do it. She would leave there in tears after telling the truth and crawl back in the hole she came from
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
What would she say, "Um sorry for all the confusion, I didn't really mean it"?
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
For me it isn't really about if it did or did not happen.
The "news" discussions where they are supporting the decision to withhold the info until later is defended by the assertion of respecting the woman's request to remain anonymous should be challenged.
That is clearly BS, Biden discussed Anita Hills allegations with the committee. It came out before she agreed to out herself.
WHY did she already take and pass a polygraph? (A polygraph isn't hard to pass you simply have to make yourself believe what you are saying is true, I've done it)
The process the Democrats have used is despicable and if they gain a majority in the Mid terms I suspect we will not have a SCOTUS candidate approved until after the 2020 elections.
If the Dems win the Presidency I have already documented with my "therapist" that I was assaulted by someone I won't mention until I need to!
Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
The case she addressed was a property foreclosure and Kavenaugh ruled in favor of the plaintiff to return their bond money. It was a blow to the property owners.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
If she is served a subpoena, she has to show. Why aren't they taking this serious?
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
If she is served a subpoena, she has to show. Why aren't they taking this serious?
The democrats want to delay the nomination. Truth is secondary.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
But Kavanaugh never *raped* her, not even according to the worst allegations.
It would be attempted rape or some degree of sexual assault.
Well, the other categories of sexual assault are addressed at the link I provided. The dimwit DEMS are claiming rape, however.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
Ford probably believes Kavanaugh's mother cost her parents $8,200,000 and it's coming out of her inheritance.
I would suggest an interesting and plausible political sidestep which could be taken by an unconventional President with the co-operation of a malleable (or savvy) Senate Majority Leader.
The President has the constitutional authority to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes into a true recess, such as might happen, let's suppose, during the mid-term election cycle. The Senate Majority Leader has the authority to put the Senate into recess. Having done so the President can appoint Kavanaugh or whomever he prefers. The Senate could later undo the appointment, let's remember but set that aside for now.
For sake of discussion we'll suppose the President waits until after mid-terms and the Republicans keep the Senate. He could appoint Kavanaugh and save all those middle of the road Republicans the politically risky move of voting for or against him. Or, he could appoint someone else - would the Republicans vote to later undo it?
Suppose the Democrats take the Senate and run the same scenario - would the appointment be overturned? Or would it be akin to overturning a veto, in that voting to overturn is more difficult than simply voting no the first time around?
Would the President appoint a SCOTUS justice before the mid-term election results?
The President has by quite surprisingly quiet on events of the past week, as has McConnell. And it makes me wonder why.
A private citizen demands an FBI investigation for a teen-age grope session that occurred on some undefined date and some undefined location some undefined number of years ago?
Someone seems to be a little self-important, if you ask me.
If this person was serious, the letter would have been sent to the committee chair and ranking member, the Sentate Majority and Minority Leaders, and I guess the FBI as the background check was being performed.
Sending it to only her Democrat allies smacks of political motivation at best.
Were she an average live and let live person, one could forgive her actions as those of a na?ve, ignorant and frightened woman. The fact that she is a confirmed anti-Trump activist, however, puts a stink on this whole thing that cannot be washed off with simple excuses.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
Precisely, Mr. Perfect!!!!!
Right on time.....
PHASE DETAILS FOR - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Phase: Waxing Gibbous
Illumination: 73%
Moon Age: 9.64 days
Moon Angle: 0.49
Moon Distance: 405,157.00 km
Sun Angle: 0.53
Sun Distance: 150,252,966.50 km
Precisely.
Barz, if you are giving credibility to this story, I mean if you honestly cannot see theis political stunt for what it is that truly says mega tons about you and your thought process. You gobble up every thing CNN feeds you and then try to defend every false accusation that comes along or feeble attempts at making mountains out of molehills with the pety charges against those associated with Trump.
You are no different than the little mellennial butthurt snowflakes that many make youtube videos of. You are nothing but a narrow minded liberal and defending this latest political move proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Comments
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
[:D][:D]
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Now we're getting somewhere. I contend she IS an antelope, and barz can not prove that she isn't.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Whether criminal or civil the accuser, be it prosecutor or plaintiff, bears the burden of proving their case - "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" or "by a preponderance of the evidence". To suggest the accused must disprove the case of the accuser is of course deliberate misdirection. It may be expeditious to do so, for the accused to affirmatively prove the accuser's position is untenable as a matter of fact or law, but it's not required. And it ought not be, unless we prefer to dispose of the presumption of innocence mantra that has served us reasonably well for a few hundred years. Some seem inclined to do so because they disapprove of certain players or causes.
Thus far the accuser's timing, affiliations and that any "evidence" is self generated and uncorroborated, doesn't speak well of her case. That a person believes something happened doesn't make it so.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Now, fellas...
You always have to believe the accuser in these cases.
Unless, of course, her name is Kathleen, Juanita, or Paula.
Left out Anita.[:D]
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
They're talking on PBS right now, Kellyanne Conway speaking. Says Kavanaugh says he was not even at the party. Kelly and is ripping Fienstien.
She shut down the hag interviewer who was trying to corner her on what ifs etc.
Anyone remember Clarence Thomas?
Anita Hill told about the pubic hair and that was it.
She presented no relevant information and Thomas was confirmed.
As long as President Trump does not withdraw the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
cnn and their fellow suck bag demoncraps keep proving it every day.
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
Over something that happened in high school?
No, he will be toast for his public denials should the allegations prove to be true.
Evidence might include providing the details to a health care provider during therapy 6 years ago.
And do tell, what is the standard of proof that will convict him Barz?
What type of proof will shut this down? How do you prove something didn't happen?
Just the nature of it is proof enough it didn't happen in my eyes, what are your thoughts or opinion on if he is guilty or innocent and what would convince you?
Since this is not a criminal case, he will not be convicted of anything.
And you can take as "proof" whatever you want.
I have already told you what may be a factor in judging the preponderance of the evidence.
A polygraph may also be useful in determining credibility.
POLYGRAPH!! Yea, that won't happen to her because she is a complete sham. I will bet you a c-note to that will NEVER happen. Taker? or just more smoke from the Halloween H2O machine?
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
And so you don't have any facts regarding the alleged incident, either.
Both Kelly Ann Conway and POTUS say they need to give a hearing to the claims.
Perhaps they should.
We'll see !
You are killing me with your total foolishness and horse blinders you have on. [:o)]
If anyone would like to read the letter --
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html
Well hell, I have misjudged the young lady. The only reason she wrote the letter was she ?felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.?
As soon as I locate Jane Fonda and confess to her I?ve been in love with her for fifty years, I?ll try to locate what?s her name and apologize to her for misjudging her so badly. What a brave and civic minded young lady.
Democrats had this information in July but waited until right before the vote to bring it up.
The judge who has by the accounts of dozens of people (women) he has worked with and those he has dated say he is an impeccable person
A woman, an admitted progressive who's parents were the defendants in a foreclosure in which the Judge's mother was the judge and who's brother is a lawyer with a firm involved in creating the Russian collusion witch hunt is accusing him of something to which there is no evidence at all about an event 35 years ago that can not in anyway be proven one way or another and all of this was not planned as partisan liberal intentions to find a way around the legal process to confirm or not a supreme court judge.
And we should believe them? Besides Barz who is till blubbering about his girl losing
Sounds right
If this ploy works there will never be another male on the SCOTUS
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
Anyone heard differently?
Brad Steele
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
What would she say, "Um sorry for all the confusion, I didn't really mean it"?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The "news" discussions where they are supporting the decision to withhold the info until later is defended by the assertion of respecting the woman's request to remain anonymous should be challenged.
That is clearly BS, Biden discussed Anita Hills allegations with the committee. It came out before she agreed to out herself.
WHY did she already take and pass a polygraph? (A polygraph isn't hard to pass you simply have to make yourself believe what you are saying is true, I've done it)
The process the Democrats have used is despicable and if they gain a majority in the Mid terms I suspect we will not have a SCOTUS candidate approved until after the 2020 elections.
If the Dems win the Presidency I have already documented with my "therapist" that I was assaulted by someone I won't mention until I need to!
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
The case she addressed was a property foreclosure and Kavenaugh ruled in favor of the plaintiff to return their bond money. It was a blow to the property owners.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
If she is served a subpoena, she has to show. Why aren't they taking this serious?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
If she is served a subpoena, she has to show. Why aren't they taking this serious?
The democrats want to delay the nomination. Truth is secondary.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7
But Kavanaugh never *raped* her, not even according to the worst allegations.
It would be attempted rape or some degree of sexual assault.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The last report I read is that the accuser has not yet formally accepted the invitation to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anyone heard differently?
I heard on the radio that she would only testify if the FBI agreed to do a full blown investigation of the incident.
Interesting. Didn't Schumer request the same thing?
What crime would the FBI be investigating? I think the statute of limitations for touching boobies is less than 30 years.
A convenient fact for the Dems is that there is no statute of limitations for the alleged crime, in MD
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7
But Kavanaugh never *raped* her, not even according to the worst allegations.
It would be attempted rape or some degree of sexual assault.
Well, the other categories of sexual assault are addressed at the link I provided. The dimwit DEMS are claiming rape, however.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=7
Well, the other categories of sexual assault are addressed at the link I provided. The dimwit DEMS are claiming rape, however.
Sodomy must be a felony then in Maryland. It is on that list and no statute of limitations.
So how does that work for them. Also felony for perversion.
I don't think those laws hold water.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
Precisely, Mr. Perfect!!!!!
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?
Ford probably believes Kavanaugh's mother cost her parents $8,200,000 and it's coming out of her inheritance.
The President has the constitutional authority to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes into a true recess, such as might happen, let's suppose, during the mid-term election cycle. The Senate Majority Leader has the authority to put the Senate into recess. Having done so the President can appoint Kavanaugh or whomever he prefers. The Senate could later undo the appointment, let's remember but set that aside for now.
For sake of discussion we'll suppose the President waits until after mid-terms and the Republicans keep the Senate. He could appoint Kavanaugh and save all those middle of the road Republicans the politically risky move of voting for or against him. Or, he could appoint someone else - would the Republicans vote to later undo it?
Suppose the Democrats take the Senate and run the same scenario - would the appointment be overturned? Or would it be akin to overturning a veto, in that voting to overturn is more difficult than simply voting no the first time around?
Would the President appoint a SCOTUS justice before the mid-term election results?
The President has by quite surprisingly quiet on events of the past week, as has McConnell. And it makes me wonder why.
Someone seems to be a little self-important, if you ask me.
If this person was serious, the letter would have been sent to the committee chair and ranking member, the Sentate Majority and Minority Leaders, and I guess the FBI as the background check was being performed.
Sending it to only her Democrat allies smacks of political motivation at best.
Were she an average live and let live person, one could forgive her actions as those of a na?ve, ignorant and frightened woman. The fact that she is a confirmed anti-Trump activist, however, puts a stink on this whole thing that cannot be washed off with simple excuses.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his *, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....
Your post demonstrates far more about you, and your ability to think, than anything regarding me.
Congratulations.
Hey, you are the accused, not me. I am just bringing forward relevant information from 30 some odd years ago.
Seems entirely plausible to me, given what Barz demonstrates here.
Precisely, Mr. Perfect!!!!!
Right on time.....
PHASE DETAILS FOR - WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
Phase: Waxing Gibbous
Illumination: 73%
Moon Age: 9.64 days
Moon Angle: 0.49
Moon Distance: 405,157.00 km
Sun Angle: 0.53
Sun Distance: 150,252,966.50 km
Precisely.
Barz, if you are giving credibility to this story, I mean if you honestly cannot see theis political stunt for what it is that truly says mega tons about you and your thought process. You gobble up every thing CNN feeds you and then try to defend every false accusation that comes along or feeble attempts at making mountains out of molehills with the pety charges against those associated with Trump.
You are no different than the little mellennial butthurt snowflakes that many make youtube videos of. You are nothing but a narrow minded liberal and defending this latest political move proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Do you touch yerself when you read these stories?