Kavanaugh hearing

[Cunt]

Cunt, what is problem with abortion? Other than you being a Cunt.

Problem with abortion is that it is necessary.

For me, the ideal would be if everyone could choose whether they wanted to create a child or not - without any pressure from others.

Since that isn't available, abortion IS (it seems to me) necessary.

Since it IS needed, I would like to see it handled discreetly, at the will of the pregnant woman, along with her other subsidized health care.

In my opinion, no-one needs to know aside from the woman, and her doctor. Everyone else can fuck off and read a book.

Is that a problem? Or would you rather I had a different position on the issue?

Oh, and in the US, health care is subsidized differently. I don't know how to serve it up in a free market, fairly. I would expect that it is more complicated when deciding who should pay for it.

[Forty Two]

He never denied that he drank heavily. He denied blacking out. Most people consider heavy drinking to include blacking out, but blacking out is not required for one to be drinking heavily. He's not denying anything he says he has no memory of.

[Tero]

So even he thinks he might have done "something." I see, that is why he as freaking out about Democrats and shitting in his pants live.

[Cunt]

He never denied that he drank heavily. He denied blacking out. Most people consider heavy drinking to include blacking out, but blacking out is not required for one to be drinking heavily. He's not denying anything he says he has no memory of.

Don't you get it?

If a woman is crying, she MUST be a victim!

And don't you DARE try to suggest that being complicit in these kind of parties is something for women to be held to account for. Only MEN (or older boys) are responsible enough to be held accountable for allowing drunken groping to go unchecked. Women couldn't do anything about it, because they are only victims.

Even if they are quoted in their yearbook as going cruising for younger boys.

[Tero]

Cunt, what is problem with abortion? Other than you being a Cunt.

Problem with abortion is that it is necessary.

For me, the ideal would be if everyone could choose whether they wanted to create a child or not - without any pressure from others.

Since that isn't available, abortion IS (it seems to me) necessary.

Since it IS needed, I would like to see it handled discreetly, at the will of the pregnant woman, along with her other subsidized health care.

In my opinion, no-one needs to know aside from the woman, and her doctor. Everyone else can fuck off and read a book.

Is that a problem? Or would you rather I had a different position on the issue?

Oh, and in the US, health care is subsidized differently. I don't know how to serve it up in a free market, fairly. I would expect that it is more complicated when deciding who should pay for it.

We are talking about a political process here, this is not a trial. So Democrats can easily dump Kavanaugh for lacking leadership quality. Trump is extremely confident once he got in. None of that appears here. Appointing Kavanaugh is one step leading to making abortion a state issue. It it is not a federal government power, to rule on reproductive rights, it automatically goes to states. Kansas could ban abortion in a year with Kavanaugh in the court. He is 100% libertarian, small government and state rights guy.

[Forty Two]

She, obviously, goes all over the place by plane, and if she wasn't lying about not being able to testify because of her fear of flying, then she would have said that "it's difficult for me to fly...."

You are not reading or listening. People have a hard time explaining their anxieties, they may look like lies to outsiders. I explained it. I'm quite familiar with anxieties. I would have made a decent psychologist. Except I don't like people that much.

You're missing it. It's not about her having an anxiety. She and her lawyers both said she couldn't come to Washington to testify because she had a fear of flying. Her lawyers would not have any problem stating that she would have a hard time flying, but that she would do it - only it would be difficult. Also, she and her lawyers were told that she didn't need to fly - people would come to them. They opted not to take that option.

Look - there are reasons people don't report things, don't remember things, and are mistaken about things - there are and can be tons of good reasons that different people have those issues. Ford may well have a good reason for her inconsistencies, her lack of recollection, her misremembering etc. That doesn't add to the confidence one would have in the accuracy of her statements.

Is it not possible that she is also mistaken about what she now says is 100% certain? Or, are those recollections immune from all the reasons she has to be uncertain and to have difficulty explaining herself?

[Forty Two]

We are talking about a political process here, this is not a trial. So Democrats can easily dump Kavanaugh for lacking leadership quality. Trump is extremely confident once he got in. None of that appears here. Appointing Kavanaugh is one step leading to making abortion a state issue. It it is not a federal government power, to rule on reproductive rights, it automatically goes to states. Kansas could ban abortion in a year with Kavanaugh in the court. He is 100% libertarian, small government and state rights guy.

Indeed, but they did not have a "lack of leadership quality" objection, did they?

People have gone to that now, because after being confronted by a series of concocted and confected scurrilous and horrible allegations, he got upset. Now they want to say that his reactions to the mendacious fabrications were lacking in some way.

Fine - take that position. But, they ought to take it explicitly. Let's hear Feinstein say "regardless of the truth or lack thereof of these allegations, Kavanaugh's reaction to them and his presentation are such that he should be disqualified from serving as SCOTUS justice."

If this is about his judicial philosphy or opinions, that too is a good reason to vote no. And, the Democrats were already voting no. What they're doing is using false allegations of criminal sexual conduct in order to figure a way to keep the majority "yes" folks from voting that way, or to delay it until the legislature changes.

[Tero]

The Senate can vote on the candidate by whatever criteria they like. He is clearly hostile to Democrats so there is no further reason needed for every Democrat to vote NO.

[Tero]

She, obviously, goes all over the place by plane, and if she wasn't lying about not being able to testify because of her fear of flying, then she would have said that "it's difficult for me to fly...."

You are not reading or listening. People have a hard time explaining their anxieties, they may look like lies to outsiders. I explained it. I'm quite familiar with anxieties. I would have made a decent psychologist. Except I don't like people that much.

You're missing it. It's not about her having an anxiety. She and her lawyers both said she couldn't come to Washington to testify because she had a fear of flying. Her lawyers would not have any problem stating that she would have a hard time flying, but that she would do it - only it would be difficult. Also, she and her lawyers were told that she didn't need to fly - people would come to them. They opted not to take that option.

Look - there are reasons people don't report things, don't remember things, and are mistaken about things - there are and can be tons of good reasons that different people have those issues. Ford may well have a good reason for her inconsistencies, her lack of recollection, her misremembering etc. That doesn't add to the confidence one would have in the accuracy of her statements.

Is it not possible that she is also mistaken about what she now says is 100% certain? Or, are those recollections immune from all the reasons she has to be uncertain and to have difficulty explaining herself?

That was all just lawyer talk. Her issues about flying and not flying and the set up to interview involved lawyers, bureaucrats etc. Her testimony on Kavanaugh was not coached. her testimony was only influenced by one other person, her therapist.

[Forty Two]

Her own school yearbooks (in which parents took out paid ads) celebrated “boys [and] beer” and pictured beer bottles and beer cans and scenes of boys and girls drinking at parties. One published a photo of Ford and other girls at a Halloween party alongside a caption boasting of “pass[ing] out” after playing “Quarters” and other binge-drinking games. Her father, Ralph Blasey, was president of the local country club.

Neither her parents nor her two siblings have come out to voice support for Ford, and they did not sign a family letter of support for her and her claims circulated by her husband.

The Holton-Arms yearbooks in question, which cover her sophomore, junior and senior years, are titled "Scribe ’82," "Scribe ’83" and "Scribe ’84."

Among other things, the annual books objectified men and even talked about hiring male strippers, including one in a “gold G-string," for sweet 16 parties. They also featured the young Holton coeds dressed as Playboy bunnies and posing seductively atop desks, school-uniform skirts hiked up.

One section, “While the Parents Were Out,” talked about partying with boys at area house parties where kids got so drunk they “ruined" their parents' “heirloom Persian rugs” with vomit.

“The tenth grade taught us how to party,” the girls bragged in another section. And, “Loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”

A caption on another page talked about girls having “their choice of men” at the neighboring boys schools, including Georgetown Prep: “No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success."

Jay Martin, who went to school in the area at the time, asserted that Holton-Arms girls back in the 1980s were hardly innocent “victims" of Georgetown Prep boys.

“I am her age,” he said of Ford. “I went to high school next to Prep and knew lots of Holton-Arms girls. This is pure false memory syndrome.”

Added Martin: “One of my best women friends had Kavanaugh ask her out [and] she said he was ‘one of the nice ones.’ His mom was a judge. I mean, seriously?”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com ... books.html

If we conclude that Kavanaugh was probably a black-out drunk because he was a heavy drinker in high school, may we conclude the same thing about Dr. Ford? Or, no?

[Forty Two]

She, obviously, goes all over the place by plane, and if she wasn't lying about not being able to testify because of her fear of flying, then she would have said that "it's difficult for me to fly...."

You are not reading or listening. People have a hard time explaining their anxieties, they may look like lies to outsiders. I explained it. I'm quite familiar with anxieties. I would have made a decent psychologist. Except I don't like people that much.

You're missing it. It's not about her having an anxiety. She and her lawyers both said she couldn't come to Washington to testify because she had a fear of flying. Her lawyers would not have any problem stating that she would have a hard time flying, but that she would do it - only it would be difficult. Also, she and her lawyers were told that she didn't need to fly - people would come to them. They opted not to take that option.

Look - there are reasons people don't report things, don't remember things, and are mistaken about things - there are and can be tons of good reasons that different people have those issues. Ford may well have a good reason for her inconsistencies, her lack of recollection, her misremembering etc. That doesn't add to the confidence one would have in the accuracy of her statements.

Is it not possible that she is also mistaken about what she now says is 100% certain? Or, are those recollections immune from all the reasons she has to be uncertain and to have difficulty explaining herself?

That was all just lawyer talk. Her issues about flying and not flying and the set up to interview involved lawyers, bureaucrats etc. Her testimony on Kavanaugh was not coached. her testimony was only influenced by one other person, her therapist.

She had a lawyer help her with the letter to Feinstein, and has been consulting with lawyers every step of the way. Her testimony was carefully crafted, with her consultants involved. That's why she added many more details in her Senate testimony than she disclosed to Feinstein or the Washington Post. Her memory got better and better the more she consulted.

[Forty Two]

The Senate can vote on the candidate by whatever criteria they like. He is clearly hostile to Democrats so there is no further reason needed for every Democrat to vote NO.

They were already voting no.

[Tero]

She, obviously, goes all over the place by plane, and if she wasn't lying about not being able to testify because of her fear of flying, then she would have said that "it's difficult for me to fly...."

You are not reading or listening. People have a hard time explaining their anxieties, they may look like lies to outsiders. I explained it. I'm quite familiar with anxieties. I would have made a decent psychologist. Except I don't like people that much.

You're missing it. It's not about her having an anxiety. She and her lawyers both said she couldn't come to Washington to testify because she had a fear of flying. Her lawyers would not have any problem stating that she would have a hard time flying, but that she would do it - only it would be difficult. Also, she and her lawyers were told that she didn't need to fly - people would come to them. They opted not to take that option.

Look - there are reasons people don't report things, don't remember things, and are mistaken about things - there are and can be tons of good reasons that different people have those issues. Ford may well have a good reason for her inconsistencies, her lack of recollection, her misremembering etc. That doesn't add to the confidence one would have in the accuracy of her statements.

Is it not possible that she is also mistaken about what she now says is 100% certain? Or, are those recollections immune from all the reasons she has to be uncertain and to have difficulty explaining herself?

That was all just lawyer talk. Her issues about flying and not flying and the set up to interview involved lawyers, bureaucrats etc. Her testimony on Kavanaugh was not coached. her testimony was only influenced by one other person, her therapist.

She had a lawyer help her with the letter to Feinstein, and has been consulting with lawyers every step of the way. Her testimony was carefully crafted, with her consultants involved. That's why she added many more details in her Senate testimony than she disclosed to Feinstein or the Washington Post. Her memory got better and better the more she consulted.

She is not an actor. She read her letter in her own voice. In fact, she was in control. she also is not seeking a job. She has little to gain, she can continue in her job no matter who becomes judge.

You are not recognizing that your boy failed. No FBI report needed. He does not have the qualifications for the job. His speech was pathetic.

[Cunt]

It it is not a federal government power, to rule on reproductive rights, it automatically goes to states. Kansas could ban abortion in a year with Kavanaugh in the court. He is 100% libertarian, small government and state rights guy.

If it goes to the states, then it goes to the states. I understand the US is weird about divisions of power between state and federal levels. You may be right.

What gets me is that people love the vote, unless it doesn't go their way. This is one of those issues.

In Canada, there was a referrendum to see if we should use capitol punishment. The Canadian voters overwhelmingly supported the idea. If we were in the states, we would be killing criminals already.

As it is, the government ignored the results of the referrendum, because the people were deemed wrong. (I guess)

In the US, if a state voted to make abortion illegal, would you stop supporting voting? Or stop supporting abortion rights? Neither? Both?

If the dems did a smear job, this reaction is different than if the dems did not do a smear job.

So do you think they did?

[Cunt]

The Senate can vote on the candidate by whatever criteria they like. He is clearly hostile to Democrats so there is no further reason needed for every Democrat to vote NO.

I think the democrats already tipped their hand. This changes nothing, except now I think politicians lie and use people for personal gain, and even less lofty reasons.