Kavanaugh hearing

[Forty Two]

If Kavanaughwas in high school he was 17, she was 15. Is there a math problem?

Yeah, in Dr. Ford's head - she first said the alleged attack occurred in the mid-1980s -- later she said it was the "early" 1980s -- finally se settled on 1982 - so at first she was 17 or 18. Then it rewound to 15 over time. She doesn't know, because she's full of shit.

[Joe]

Who hasn't done a bit of bar room brawling? It's normal behaviour, even for supreme court judges. Also, everyone lies too, so lying about it is ok as well.

Hey, I like beer. Do you like beer? Do you... DO YOU...??

Are we really going to suggest that Kavanaugh is the first SCOTUS Justice, President, Congressperson, who was in a bar room fight or got drunk? In Oz, they just have fistfights on Parliament floor - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... fight.html

The Democrats recently were lauding the honorable career of John McCain, who they lamented was not the leader of the GOP of late -- so honorable - such a fearless, wonderful leader.... but when he was in the military and as a high school and college age young man he repeatedly got in fights and drank and the like.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton bragged about having a "drinking contest" in Estonia - doing shots of vodka.

John Adams drank hard cider for breakfast. William Henry Harrison sullied Martin Van Buren's name, calling him an alcoholic, and Van Buren used to drink so much he was nicknamed Blue Whisky Van and would drink solidly for days. Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan - both hard drinkers all their lives - not just as young men, but during their presidencies. Ulysses S Grant won the Civil War drunk.

Come the fuck on, people. Really? Has everyone gone fucking bonkers?

What is happening to everyone?

No one gives a fuck about the drinking.

If you actually think the drinking is the issue here, then you're a fucking moron.

But if you know the drinking isn't the real issue, but are trotting out this strawman anyway in order to "win" the argument, then you are a disingenuous liar.

Which is it?

I'd like to see someone respond to that Current Affairs piece you posted that eviscerated Kavanaugh's testimony.

It's fair to think that a long ago and uncorroborated misdeed shouldn't disqualify an otherwise upstanding jurist from the Supreme Court, but present day lying under oath seems like another matter. Shouldn't a high court judge respect such things?

[Tero]

We are done withthe boys will be boys part. Do you have anything more on the sluts to present?

[Tero]

If Kavanaughwas in high school he was 17, she was 15. Is there a math problem?

Yeah, in Dr. Ford's head - she first said the alleged attack occurred in the mid-1980s -- later she said it was the "early" 1980s -- finally se settled on 1982 - so at first she was 17 or 18. Then it rewound to 15 over time. She doesn't know, because she's full of shit.

They were in high school together. You are not doing the math. It’s the ”she’s afraid to fly then flies” bs all over again. Do the math! Your shaming of Ford fails.

[Brian Peacock]

..
I saw a the article from Seabass which shows inconsistencies in Kavanaughs words. What stood out for me though, was that it didn't take any effort to examine Fords.

I guess Ford doesn't matter to the author.

An analysis of Mr Kavanaugh's deflective and misdirecting answers to the hearing is not dependent on an analysis of Ms Ford's answers - nor has there been a shortage of analysis of her words either.

Objection overruled!

[Tero]

Ted Lieu in Huff post:
“There are many other judges the president could nominate that would have better temperament, that did not lie under oath and that are not so fully partisan as Judge Kavanaugh,” Lieu said.

The mention of the Clintons, among other “conspiracy theories,” Lieu said, was “really quite bizarre.”

“A Supreme Court justice,” Lieu added, “is not supposed to be the mouthpiece for Donald Trump.”

[Cunt]

We are done withthe boys will be boys part. Do you have anything more on the sluts to present?

Tero, if a woman accuses you of sexual assault, should we believe her?

Or would you prefer that we consider carefully before treating you like an assaulter?

Objection overruled!

Same question for you, but I'll add that if your accuser is clearly wrong about factual claims, should we believe her anyway?

If so, it sounds like you don't care about the accuser, only the accusation.

This accusation will be credited, regardless of how many clear lies told by Ford, no matter how many dollars are sent to her for making the accusation.

Should we treat everyone the same? Or only republicans?

[Tero]

We are done withthe boys will be boys part. Do you have anything more on the sluts to present?

Tero, if a woman accuses you of sexual assault, should we believe her?

Or would you prefer that we consider carefully before treating you like an assaulter?

Objection overruled!

Same question for you, but I'll add that if your accuser is clearly wrong about factual claims, should we believe her anyway?

If so, it sounds like you don't care about the accuser, only the accusation.

This accusation will be credited, regardless of how many clear lies told by Ford, no matter how many dollars are sent to her for making the accusation.

Should we treat everyone the same? Or only republicans?

You should believe her if I’m up for judge. But I would not be up for judge.

[Brian Peacock]

Who hasn't done a bit of bar room brawling? It's normal behaviour, even for supreme court judges. Also, everyone lies too, so lying about it is ok as well.

Hey, I like beer. Do you like beer? Do you... DO YOU...??

Are we really going to suggest that Kavanaugh is the first SCOTUS Justice, President, Congressperson, who was in a bar room fight or got drunk? In Oz, they just have fistfights on Parliament floor - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... fight.html

The Democrats recently were lauding the honorable career of John McCain, who they lamented was not the leader of the GOP of late -- so honorable - such a fearless, wonderful leader.... but when he was in the military and as a high school and college age young man he repeatedly got in fights and drank and the like.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton bragged about having a "drinking contest" in Estonia - doing shots of vodka.

John Adams drank hard cider for breakfast. William Henry Harrison sullied Martin Van Buren's name, calling him an alcoholic, and Van Buren used to drink so much he was nicknamed Blue Whisky Van and would drink solidly for days. Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan - both hard drinkers all their lives - not just as young men, but during their presidencies. Ulysses S Grant won the Civil War drunk.

Come the fuck on, people. Really? Has everyone gone fucking bonkers?

What is happening to everyone?

You've missed the point somewhat. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that Mr Kavanaugh's provocative challenge to senator Whitehouse, lampooned above, was given in response to a plain question about the meaning of a calendar entry in which the young BK referred to himself as "Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor" - a response he later apologised for, but which left the question unanswered nonetheless. As I'm sure you'll also acknowledge, being deliberately and personally provocative to avoid difficult questions in a serious setting like a senate committee room doesn't reflect well on Mr Kavanaugh's character or temperament - or perhaps you don't?

[Brian Peacock]

...

Objection overruled!

Same question for you, but I'll add that if your accuser is clearly wrong about factual claims, should we believe her anyway?

If the accused is clearly wrong about the facts on which their denials rest, should we believe them anyway? Your earlier response remains fallacious btw.

[Cunt]

You should believe her if I’m up for judge. But I would not be up for judge.

I'll be sure to believe any claim a victim makes about you. I'm not impressed by titles like 'judge' or anything.

...

Objection overruled!

Same question for you, but I'll add that if your accuser is clearly wrong about factual claims, should we believe her anyway?

If the accused is clearly wrong about the facts on which their denials rest, should we believe them anyway? Your earlier response remains fallacious btw.

It depends what the accused is wrong about, I guess.

But I noticed you didn't answer. Don't worry, you and Tero aren't important enough to have this kind of government funded attack.

You really can't say that her veracity is important, can you? I mean, if she is proven to be incorrect about factual elements of her claim, and funded by Kavanaughs political opposition, and the matter is brought to light in a carefully timed way, by Feinstein leaking the information, can you not see that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck?

What kind of evidence would change your mind about her claims?

[Tero]

You wouldn’t want me appointed as a hypocrite judge to rule on your women having abortions. Even a 50% chance I lied, throw me out. It’s a job interview.

[Cunt]

You wouldn’t want me appointed as a hypocrite judge to rule on your women having abortions. Even a 50% chance I lied, throw me out. It’s a job interview.

You really are stuck on this one thing, aren't you?

It's almost like the abortion stance of the prospective judge has you blind to any possibility that Ford was lying, supported by the demoncrats...

It's funny to watch, since you seem so thoughtful about other issues.

[Tero]

You have not heard? It’s all about abortion. The only thing that will turn out evangelicals and save Trump’s ass. Otherwise even Trump is toast.

[Cunt]

You have not heard? It’s all about abortion. The only thing that will turn out evangelicals and save Trump’s ass. Otherwise even Trump is toast.

Keep on shouting that way. If you could gain a bigger platform, it would drive even more voter to Trump.

I LOVE how self-described 'progressives' work so hard for the Trump campaign, without realizing it.