Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

The Gorland/Franken standard must apply.

not only wait till after the midterms, but resign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Susan Collins on Al Franken: “I did find the allegations against him to be both credible, disgusting and appalling and degrading to women,” she told host George Stephanopoulos during an appearance on his Sunday show “This Week.

Lisa Murkowski on Al Franken: “We’re seeing a culture of harassment & assault being exposed on a daily basis,” Murkowski wrote on Twitter in 2017. “Whether you are in the media, politics, or anywhere else abuse of power is unacceptable & shouldn’t be tolerated at any place at any level. Sen. Franken must know that & that’s why he must step down.”

There's a little bit of resistance, which will require a bit harder push, but this nomination is gonna get rammed in there, whether those women like it or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

There's a little bit of resistance, which will require a bit harder push, but this nomination is gonna get rammed in there, whether those women like it or not.  

Actually, whatever the GOP does at this point will be inconsequential. Kavanaugh has given the Dems enough to initiate impeachment, and if they lack the votes to remove him in the Senate, the Dems can enlarge the court and pack it with liberals who will negate any decision he may make in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think we're sunk on this one. A double, black, hallmark for history (considering how Gursuch got in).

Please consider that progressive causes hold their own, over the centuries, and that the smell of this will demand improvement among the young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Actually, whatever the GOP does at this point will be inconsequential. Kavanaugh has given the Dems enough to initiate impeachment, and if they lack the votes to remove him in the Senate, the Dems can enlarge the court and pack it with liberals who will negate any decision he may make in the future.

No thanks.  I'm not a big fan of short term solutions with long term ramifications.  Packing the court is a prime example of that.  Might as well appoint the whole RNC and DNC to the Court.  We have one such dysfunctional branch of government already.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Well that changes everything.

What is your initial reaction to her, you know...before the marching orders come out?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Actually, whatever the GOP does at this point will be inconsequential. Kavanaugh has given the Dems enough to initiate impeachment, and if they lack the votes to remove him in the Senate, the Dems can enlarge the court and pack it with liberals who will negate any decision he may make in the future.

What has Kavanaugh given Dems that warrants impeachment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What is your initial reaction to her, you know...before the marching orders come out?  

That we will never know if her allegations are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

What has Kavanaugh given Dems that warrants impeachment?

I think the allegations of perjury can do him in, add his statement about not prosecuting a sitting president, something that would have undone him a few years ago. his position on torture is a disqualification as well. I'm sure there are more once we get a gander at all the un-released documents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Truth for you is what the party wills it to be Dog.

Bla bla bla.

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this since allegations by themselves are easy to make? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Bla bla bla.

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this since allegations by themselves are easy to make? 

The same way we did when unproven allegations were made against Senator Al Franken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bla bla bla.

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this since allegations by themselves are easy to make? 

Notes from 2012? That’s pretty damn prescient...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this since allegations by themselves are easy to make? 

oh, clearly, many women fabricate abuse storys years before the abuser is nominated to the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

oh, clearly, many women fabricate abuse storys years before the abuser is nominated to the court.

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bla bla bla.

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this since allegations by themselves are easy to make? 

How about fully investigate, or in this case have her, her shrink, and the nominee testify before the committee. The GOP leadership find themselves in a mess. They want to ram through the nominee before anything else appears (how about another woman accuser) but know if they do that they will piss off even more women. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

How so?

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

How do you suggest we should respond to unproven allegations in matters like this?

 Standard GOP approach

The Franken standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Really?

Yes really...Is there any mention of Kavanaugh in the notes? How many guys were present in the notes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Dog said:

Yes really...Is there any mention of Kavanaugh in the notes? How many guys were present in the notes?

maybe we should, I dunno, investigate this matter. Maybe that's what you do with allegations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

How about fully investigate, or in this case have her, her shrink, and the nominee testify before the committee. The GOP leadership find themselves in a mess. They want to ram through the nominee before anything else appears (how about another woman accuser) but know if they do that they will piss off even more women. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

So if this is preceedent all that has to be done to derail a nomination is to line up a series of unproven allegations. Is that what we want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

So if this is preceedent all that has to be done to derail a nomination is to line up a series of unproven allegations. Is that what we want?

It's what Team R wanted for Democrat members of congress. Why the double standard Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's what Team R wanted for Democrat members of congress. Why the double standard Dog?

I don't know what you're talking about.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

So if this is preceedent all that has to be done to derail a nomination is to line up a series of unproven allegations. Is that what we want?

I didn't say derail his nomination, although that is clearly the narrative you want since it gives you a talking point. Are you opposed to an investigation and having the principals testify under oath to the committee? Surely not ... or maybe since logic and ethics often is not present in your posts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta admit, she is damned prescient to have seen Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, and decided to invent a story back in 2012 to derail him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

didn't know that the other alleged criminal wrote multiple books talking about his time as a "blackout drunk" at Georgetown Prep.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/

clearly there's a guy who'll have a good memory.

"Bart O'Kavanaugh" is featured in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

So if this is preceedent all that has to be done to derail a nomination is to line up a series of unproven allegations. Is that what we want?

Cough Franken Cough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't know what you're talking about.

Liar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

didn't know that the other alleged criminal wrote multiple books talking about his time as a "blackout drunk" at Georgetown Prep.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/

clearly there's a guy who'll have a good memory.

The GOP elephant in the room, that you guys are too polite to mention, is that this sounds like a potential gang bang. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

Attempted rape. 

So, is this your idea of “groping”? -

“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.”

 

Sir 

The alleged event fails in the Clintonian and Wikipedia definition of rape.

 

Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations....”

 

From Wikipedia: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

 

So the alleged groping is not rape.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

Sir 

The alleged event fails in the Clintonian and Wikipedia definition of rape.

 

Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations....”

 

From Wikipedia: Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.

 

So the alleged groping is not rape.

 

"Attempted" rape.

 

Franken-standard should be applied. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone @Dog explain why the Garland/Franken standards should NOT be used here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

I think the allegations of perjury can do him in, add his statement about not prosecuting a sitting president, something that would have undone him a few years ago. his position on torture is a disqualification as well. I'm sure there are more once we get a gander at all the un-released documents.

That is the part that I hate.     He wants to give the Republican President a walk on all crimes, so he must be a great 'justice'.    Torturing a helpless prisoner makes you tough and effective, so naturally we love such cruelty.   I am increasingly ashamed of my country.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Can someone @Dog explain why the Garland/Franken standards should NOT be used here?

Is there a picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Is there a picture?

A picture of what?  

It seems photographic evidence is required for Dog to believe it occurred.

Now, as far as I know, no photo existed of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.  But, that's different.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Is there a picture?

Nope, just a conscious girl being forcibly groped and suffocated..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I didn't say derail his nomination, although that is clearly the narrative you want since it gives you a talking point. Are you opposed to an investigation and having the principals testify under oath to the committee? Surely not ... or maybe since logic and ethics often is not present in your posts.

If it were about learning the truth the allegation would have been introduced durring the hearings not after they concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

It seems photographic evidence is required for Dog to believe it occurred.

Now, as far as I know, no photo existed of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.  But, that's different.  

Someone suggested applying the Frankin standard which involves a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Nope, just a conscious girl being forcibly groped and suffocated..

So she says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Someone suggested applying the Frankin standard which involves a picture.

that's how you define it, eh?

No photo, no boorish behavior?

Cause what Franken did wasn't even illegal. It was just stupid.

What Kav is accused of is criminal, even if the Statute of Limitations has expired...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

So she says.

Ahh, attack the accuser, even though she didn't accuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

If it were about learning the truth the allegation would have been introduced durring the hearings not after they concluded.

Feinstein's approach was shitty, for sure. Does it change anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

Someone suggested applying the Frankin standard which involves a picture.

that's how you define it, eh?

No photo, no boorish behavior?

Cause what Franken did wasn't even illegal. It was just stupid.

What Kav is accused of is criminal, even if the Statute of Limitations has expired...

He's happy to play that game, now.  Once the tables are turned, it'll be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

He's happy to play that game, now.  Once the tables are turned, it'll be different.

@Dog is a disgusting, hypocritical piece of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

He's happy to play that game, now.  Once the tables are turned, it'll be different.

What game is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gone Drinking said:

So why did Feinstein sit on this for 2 months????  And when the accuser agrees to testify, why is Durbin saying it is too soon.  Just asking. 

Hard to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

He's happy to play that game, now.  Once the tables are turned, it'll be different.

What game is that?

I am of the opinion your schtick will be to demand irrefutable evidence to voice your objection to a Republican engaging in this type of behavior.

And, for you, the mere allegation of such activity by a Democrat would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Hard to say. 

Easy to say. It was a tactical decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am of the opinion your schtick will be to demand irrefutable evidence to voice your objection to a Republican engaging in this type of behavior.

And, for you, the mere allegation of such activity by a Democrat would suffice.

How does my statement up thread  that we will never know if this accusation is true square with your opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dog said:

So she says.

keep up the slut-shaming and victim blaming Dog, keep it up.

In case you conservative fuckwhits haven't figure it out - Kavanaugh will still probably get confirmed. All you are doing is pissing off the opposition more so they come out in the fall and smoother your senile, misogynist asses at the ballot box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

keep up the slut-shaming and victim blaming Dog, keep it up.

In case you conservative fuckwhits haven't figure it out - Kavanaugh will still probably get confirmed. All you are doing is pissing off the opposition more so they come out in the fall and smoother your senile, misogynist asses at the ballot box.

We don't know that she's a victim or a slut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

doggie-stylin'

That we don't know those things is simply a fact so you shouldn't be referring to her as a slut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Easy to say. It was a tactical decision.

By the victim?  Dr. Ford knew full well what lying, slutshaming shitbirds like yourself would put her through, so she did not want her name released. We are already seeing what she feared, in action. 

Interesting that you are trying to move the football after the tackle once again, but in a different direction than you tried in the Franken case.  Pity about your disappearing Franken thread tho....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

We don't know that she's a victim or a slut.

I've known quite a few sluts; none were uni profs. You must have a full beard Dog, cuz no way you can look in a mirror each day. You've gone beyond a foil to a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

By the victim?  Dr. Ford knew full well what lying, slutshaming shitbirds like yourself would put her through, so she did not want her name released. We are already seeing what she feared, in action. 

Interesting that you are trying to move the football after the tackle once again, but in a different direction than you tried in the Franken case.  Pity about your disappearing Franken thread tho....

You seem to forget that Kavanaugh is also being put through the wringer with this accusation. His character is being maligned in front of his family.

If we had a picture of Kavanaugh in the act like we have of Frankin you would have a better chance of drawing equivalence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

I've known quite a few sluts; none were uni profs. You must have a full beard Dog, cuz no way you can look in a mirror each day. You've gone beyond a foil to a fool.

Dude.....I'm the one defending her on the slut charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I assume nothing

"Boys may forget the high spirited  cheeky passes they made when they were teenagers",

 

..sometimes I wonder if you guys ever talk to women about this...We do know the difference between a playful smack on the arse, or even an unwanted goosing or tit grab... and being shouldered into a bedroom or bathroom and we do know the difference between mutually tearing off each others clothes and trying to keep our knickers on...we don't forget, misremember or misinterpret.

thanks for listening

as for your link, it'scontroversial..but I'll state this with no doubts at all..If a girl is assaulted by some one she knows..she never forgets the name. If she's assaulted by someone who's face is part of her school, work, or social circle but who's name is unknown, she'll find out their name..and won't forget it.

I don't know if this woman knew Kavanaugh by face or name at the time she claims he assaulted her.

I think you bring some baggage to this discussion.   I am not defending the alleged actions, but your tone makes me feel the need to say I have never behaved in such a way, though I have also never obtained written permission from a woman before touching her in an intimate way.  My concerns are simple.

Eye witnesses are terribly unreliable.   75% of US convictions where an innocent person was later freed by irrefutable evidence had occurred because another person swore under oath but was wrong.   Most did not lie, they were just mistaken.   Police have planted false confessions in troubled minds during long interrogation, especially of the mentally disabled and substance abusers who already lacked a clear mind.    A self defense course I attended recommended using this to advantage.   If you are ever forced to defend yourself, immediately afterword tell people what they should have seen.  "Did you see that?  He attacked me.  He grabbed me and tried to choke me."   People turn around too late, see too little, but will testify about what they think they should have seen based on your description.   The guy texting his girlfriend and ignoring the whole event will be convinced he saw you successfully defend yourself, and tell the police every detail down to which knee you used to destroy his balls, based on his own imagination of the events he just missed.   He isn't lying.  He's just human.

The party happened more then half a lifetime ago for her.   http://www.fmsfonline.org/?ginterest=CreatingFalseMemories   Presuming she is a normal adult with a normal mind, she almost certainly has events from her past that did not happen as she believes.   It is the human condition.   

I have seen no testimony from the alleged victim on her state of mind at the occasion.  Was she partying too?  Was she an emotionally struggling teenager?  Many are.   There is indirect evidence that she was.  I'd argue most teenage girls share their intimate lives in great detail with their girlfriends and maybe even the hairdresser.   She describes an emotional  event where a classmate allegedly was overcome with lust and failed to control himself.   She says she didn't tell anybody that night .   That not only makes it harder to prove if she would have had the same recollection 30 years ago, it also makes it harder to believe she was a well adjusted teenager with a strong network of friends.   Could this have predisposed her to a false memory?  

I neither believe nor disbelieve her.  I hesitate to value any claims of long past events never discussed, especially emotional ones now used to destroy a person's reputation without ability to refute.   For example, I will never forgive you for great and scarring humiliation I received as an adolescent.    You never should have called all your friends to look at my shriveled pre-manhood when I was passed out in the cold rain half in and half out of the pond.   It made me body conscious and ruined my dreams of being a male model.   Of course you can deny the whole thing, but I vividly remember.  It happened and any protests you offer are insensitive lies aimed to belittle my experience and cause me further pain.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

You seem to forget that Kavanaugh is also being put through the wringer with this accusation. His character is being maligned in front of his family.

If we had a picture of Kavanaugh in the act like we have of Frankin you would have a better chance of drawing equivalence.

Heh. The picture is getting produced right before our eyes. Open yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Crab said:

Heh. The picture is getting produced right before our eyes. Open yours.

No it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

You seem to forget that Kavanaugh is also being put through the wringer with this accusation. His character is being maligned in front of his family.

If we had a picture of Kavanaugh in the act like we have of Frankin you would have a better chance of drawing equivalence.

If there was a photo comparing an inappropriate clowning around it would hardly be equivalent to a sexual assault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a huge suburban HS. Not a small all boys prep school. And I couldn't name sixty five girls from HS, much less expect that many to write me a letter of good behavior. How could sixty five female contemporaries vouch for a boy at another school? That's weird.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

You seem to forget that Kavanaugh is also being put through the wringer with this accusation. His character is being maligned in front of his family.

If we had a picture of Kavanaugh in the act like we have of Frankin you would have a better chance of drawing equivalence.

They will both have a chance to testify.  He has already issued a categorical denial.  There is no room for walking it back.  

A picture of someone holding their hands over a sleeping woman's tits?  Some equivalence.  She said he put his hand over her mouth while he was trying to undress her.  She said nothing about him holding his hands over her tits for a childish photo op.  

 

meanwhile... It seems that Dr. Ford has some folks who believe her.  

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1LjgTFYvVjuza_z4lEZjk0Eu_-BPcxlF3-7EH25r1pzs/viewform?edit_requested=true

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

If there was a photo comparing an inappropriate clowning around it would hardly be equivalent to a sexual assault. 

But you have to admit the photo does help resolve the question of whether the alleged event actually occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

But you have to admit the photo does help resolve the question of whether the alleged event actually occurred.

The new Dog-standard for rape cases. No photo, no crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

But you have to admit the photo does help resolve the question of whether the alleged event actually occurred.

What occurred?  We went through this in the other thread, in the discussion of you trying to Doggy Style the football after the tackle to pick up some ground.  It was bullshit then.  Do you really think enough people forgot about it to be able to use the same bullshit now?  I bumped the post up for your convenience.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

The new Dog-standard for rape cases. No photo, no crime.

Wow...some Doggie styling there Raz.  Did you see that Sol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

The new Dog-standard for rape cases. No photo, no crime.

Yeah, if they have two people involved, so that the beneficiary of their efforts has her arms occupied and can't take a picture, nothing happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What occurred?  We went through this in the other thread, in the discussion of you trying to Doggy Style the football after the tackle to pick up some ground.  It was bullshit then.  Do you really think enough people forgot about it to be able to use the same bullshit now?  I bumped the post up for your convenience.  

Raz'r suggested applying the Frankin strandard to the Kavanaugh accusation but the two differ in that there is photographic evidence for one and not the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dog said:
50 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I am of the opinion your schtick will be to demand irrefutable evidence to voice your objection to a Republican engaging in this type of behavior.

And, for you, the mere allegation of such activity by a Democrat would suffice.

How does my statement up thread  that we will never know if this accusation is true square with your opinion. 

My opinion that you will apply completely different standards, based on the letter after the name of the accused, stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Raz'r suggested applying the Frankin strandard to the Kavanaugh accusation but the two differ in that there is photographic evidence for one and not the other.

What does the photographic evidence show in the one case?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Raz'r suggested applying the Frankin strandard to the Kavanaugh accusation but the two differ in that there is photographic evidence for one and not the other.

Suffering from coprophagia I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we can get to the real deal.  Sen. Collins calls for both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to testify under oath.  Let's lock it down and bring it to a head.  One of these people is lying, and should be made an example of.  

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/407026-collins-wants-kavanaugh-accuser-to-testify

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The new Dog-standard for rape cases. No photo, no crime.

 

2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The new Dog-standard for rape cases. No photo, no crime.

I'd think the polygraph and K's buddy's writing paints a reasonable picture for most of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Crab said:

 

I'd think the polygraph and K's buddy's writing paints a reasonable picture for most of us. 

definitely, for most of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Suffering from coprophagia I see.

Hey Raz'r..... 172 suggest that you view this as a rape, is that true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Hey Raz'r..... 172 suggest that you view this as a rape, is that true?

attempted. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dog said:

That we don't know those things is simply a fact so you shouldn't be referring to her as a slut.

I never referred to her as a slut  you lying piece of shit.

But thanks for illustrating your misogyny. You assume someone needs to be a slut to be slut-shamed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I never referred to her as a slut  you lying piece of shit.

Copraphagic Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy.....

"It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents".

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1041579924945960960

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Oh boy.....

"It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents".

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1041579924945960960

What are you suggesting, exactly?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

I'd think the polygraph and K's buddy's writing paints a reasonable picture for most of us. 

yessir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites