Spatial Ed

Kaven-No?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, benwynn said:

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Jack, and others like him, are fairly adept at discrediting victims of violence. 

#MeToo.  The chicks, even the GOP chicks won't take this laying down.

Share this post


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

I'd say it comes down to his performance on Monday. I think if Flake+Sasse really think he's lying, they won't vote for him. Dunno if that kills the nomination though. It may get passed up to the Senate for a vote regardless of the Judiciary Committee vote.

Right now it comes down to his credibility on Monday. If he did it then he's been practicing that credibility for decades. However, he's never faced an accuser so that credibility may be shaky.Also, if the Democrats get to ask more questions that will cause more problems. It'll be good TV.

It comes down to what comes out between now and Monday. There's a reason Turtle thought him "least confirmable" and I can't believe it's because Kavanaugh is a Republican party animal. If he were just a party animal he'd have the confirmation votes guaranteed.There's something there, somewhere, or just uncharacteristic political incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I never said anything about pushing the vote through on Thursday.  I have no issue with a pause to investigate.  What I'm talking about is if the vote is pushed to after the Midterms or worst case his nomination gets the boot, then I think GOP voters will come out in droves.  

You don't get it. The GOP always comes out in droves. Nothing new there. It's the opposition that stays home, because of gerrymandering and subtle voter suppression tactics over years have convinced most them that their votes simply don't count, (and in many precincts, they don't - see gerrymandering above). And yes, apathy over not having a decent candidate to vote for. One gets so tired of having to vote against the worst of two evils. This is a major problem for Democrats, Libertarians, the Reformers, etc. When an egotistical moron like Trump can become the GOP nominee and actually defeat a toadstool, you have to know that we are truly fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

#MeToo.  The chicks, even the GOP chicks won't take this laying down.

That's quite interesting. There are some people, even within the GOP that were expecting a Me Too moment, and were blindsided by this one. Clearly they thought it would be coming from someone else. Can't wait to see the Doggy styling when or if new revelations come to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, benwynn said:

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Jack, and others like him, are fairly adept at discrediting victims of violence. 

Why do you think they pushed it back to Monday?  That kind of slut shaming is going to take a few days. 

Share this post


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

Why do you think they pushed it back to Monday?  That kind of slut shaming is going to take a few days. 

A lot of GOP polling to do.  You gotta know how the ladies will take the slut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Agreed.  K was under oath during his hearings, but not when issuing his categorical denial.  Swear them in and let them provide answers.  

The more I read what she alleges, the less this looks like childhood stuff.  She is describing a crime of violence.  Whoever is lying needs to be publicly hammered, and relieved of the capacity to ever exercise any power over other people ever again.  

I disagree.  Lie in the hearings, lie to the senate, lie to congress, then go to prison.  I don't need to utter the words "under oath" to expect truthful answers to questions from our elected officials.

Share this post


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

Why do you think they pushed it back to Monday?  That kind of slut shaming is going to take a few days. 

They are already playing attack the victim on Fox.  No surprise.  Talking points to follow.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/17/brett-kavanaugh-supporters-defend-supreme-court-nominee-against-blasey-ford-allegations

Because if some of his other girlfriends claim he's a good guy he couldn't possibly do anything wrong.  Yellow journalism at it's worst.  Go Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two confessions:

a. I feel guilty for enjoying this so much.

b. After a week of nonstop cable watching, I look forward to Rachel Maddow. Sue me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I said last night that it is debatable, whether an act done as a kid should destroy his life now. There are good arguments either way. Kids do stupid shit, that’s why they are allowed to seal their records. I think we need to know more at this point.

But liars do not belong on the bench, especially the highest bench in the land. And we know that lying under oath is grounds for impeachment.

There's "stupid shit" and then there's "sociopathic shit."

Personally, I think raping girls is way past "stupid" when it comes to shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

There's "stupid shit" and then there's "sociopathic shit."

Personally, I think raping girls is way past "stupid" when it comes to shit.

Yeah, once I heard her story I called it violent crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grrr... said:

They are already playing attack the victim on Fox.  No surprise.  Talking points to follow.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/17/brett-kavanaugh-supporters-defend-supreme-court-nominee-against-blasey-ford-allegations

Because if some of his other girlfriends claim he's a good guy he couldn't possibly do anything wrong.  Yellow journalism at it's worst.  Go Fox.

I saw that segment and you're doggie styling it. There was no attacking the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT to the 65 women HS contemporaries (remember they didn’t actually attend the all male school he went to).  How many among us could assemble a group of 65 women who you remember from HS let alone get them all together to sign a letter of support in less than 24 hours.

also interning to note that only 2 of the 65 have come forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

WRT to the 65 women HS contemporaries (remember they didn’t actually attend the all male school he went to).  How many among us could assemble a group of 65 women who you remember from HS let alone get them all together to sign a letter of support in less than 24 hours.

also interning to note that only 2 of the 65 have come forward.

 

Agreed like the 200 that support the accuser, something ain’t right.

 

edit—- full quote from NPR “A draft letter, appearing to be signed by more than 200 Holton-Arms alumnae from 1967 to 2018, called for an investigation into the allegation and said Ford's experience is one that is "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves”

 

Some (Many?) of the signers never went to school with the accuser.  And like many that went to private schools are supporting a fellow alumn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I can find 65 people that knew I drove sober in 1998.

Should that have helped me?

Share this post


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

I'm sure I can find 65 people that knew I drove sober in 1998.

Should that have helped me?

If I, who strongly oppose your political career, come forward 30 years later to report that you were driving drunk 30 years ago, I suspect you wouldn't not be convicted of a DUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno how many saw Orrin Hatch embarrass himself at the Zuckerburg hearings (he didn't realize how Google made money), but his stupid blind partisanship and support of K is currently on full display. He really is a walking argument for term limits, age limits, and euthanasia. Toss in his religiosity (he represents Utah ... take a wildass guess), and you have a portrait of what's wrong with American politics. 

Even Meli and Mid have missed this ergo I mention it as a public service.

We need to put this old dog down.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dog said:

If Democrats had concerns about this matter they should have been aired during the hearings. Pulling a disgraceful stunt like this days before the vote is a corruption of the system and the country is worse off for it. That said and given where the Democrats have put us I think it best that the hearings be reopened to have her testify and be subjected to questioning.

We should not forget however that allegations are cheap and in these circumstances even a false and contrived allegation can be used to political advantage. We should also take steps to head off these kind of tactics in the future.

I thought the treatment of Garland was wrong but given the toxic atmosphere in Washington I'm starting to think it was humane.

You are making assumptions about tactics being the main driver of timing and why & how this information came to light. 

We don’t know what steps Feinstein took, nor the limits she tried to impose on the information prior to the public release. We do know she tried to keep the info private and she says the reason was the accuser’s desire for anonymity.

You always ascribe negative motives for anything Dems do, but in this case Feinstein may well have thought an anonymous accuser’s statement less credible and therefore delayed release until she had permission to release more info publicly, or she may have waited until the FBI showed they weren’t going to help with due diligence before releasing info. She may not even have been the reason reporters got wind of the story in the first place. 

Many possible explanations, but to partisans like you, the only narrative is to blame DemocRats for the evil in the world. Grow up, Snowflake.

The info is credible enough and serious enough that some Republicans want to resolve the issue responsibly. Learn from your betters and study their example. 

Share this post


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

You are making assumptions about tactics being the main driver of timing and why & how this information came to light. 

We don’t know what steps Feinstein took, nor the limits she tried to impose on the information prior to the public release. We do know she tried to keep the info private and she says the reason was the accuser’s desire for anonymity.

You always ascribe negative motives for anything Dems do, but in this case Feinstein may well have thought an anonymous accuser’s statement less credible and therefore delayed release, or waited until she had permission to release more info publicly, or waited until the FBI showed they weren’t going to help with due diligence before releasing info. She may not even have been the reason reporters got wind of the story in the first place. 

Many possible explanations, but to partisans like you, the only narrative is to blame DemocRats for the evil in the world. Grow up, Snowflake.

The info is credible enough and serious enough that some Republicans want to resolve the issue responsibly. Learn from your betters and study their example. 

Oh please snowflake... The timing of the release was clearly tactical.

Hey Raz'r,  you were asking who here was defending Feinstein, here he is.

Share this post


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

Oh please snowflake... The timing of the release was clearly tactical.

Hey Raz'r,  you were asking who here was defending Feinstein, here he is.

Pissant, I’ve gone on the record early in favor of Kavanaugh ‘s nomination on the basis of his accomplishments. I’ve also stated that I’ve got reservations about this 11th hour release of info and it’s paltry underpinnings. I’ve clearly stated in posts that if it’s just “he said, she said” it shouldn’t deter acceptance of Kavanaugh. 

Youve got no record of such neutral judgement on the issue, only a record of blaming Democrats for everything that you think is bad. You are the epitome of snowflake because you’re always whining about us. Grow a pair, ya wimp.

The truth will out, that’s the only lesson here. If you can’t handle truth, don’t read the newspaper and unplug from the internet. If you can’t hack justifiable criticism and negative info about SCOTUS nominees, don’t post in PA.

But now you do know that a nominee for the highest court in the land may have lied to coverup youthful indiscretions that sounds like attempted rape and all you care about is the party affiliation of his accuser?

What an immoral partisan bitch you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Pissant, I’ve gone on the record early in favor of Kavanaugh ‘s nomination on the basis of his accomplishments. I’ve also stated that I’ve got reservations about this 11th hour release of info and it’s paltry underpinnings. I’ve clearly stated in posts that if it’s just “he said, she said” it shouldn’t deter acceptance of Kavanaugh. 

Youve got no record of such neutral judgement on the issue, only a record of blaming Democrats for everything that you think is bad. You are the epitome of snowflake because you’re always whining about us. Grow a pair, ya wimp.

The truth will out, that’s the only lesson here. If you can’t handle truth, don’t read the newspaper and unplug from the internet. If you can’t hack justifiable criticism and negative info about SCOTUS nominees, don’t post in PA.

But now you do know that a nominee for the highest court in the land may have lied to coverup youthful indiscretions that sounds like attempted rape and all you care about is the party affiliation of his accuser?

What an immoral partisan bitch you are. 

Stop making shit up. I've made my assessment of this claim very clear which is that we will never see it resolved one way or the other. That position is clearly not blaming Democrats.

However the tactics they have used in this matter, publicizing the charge after the hearings have been closed and just before the vote, are reprehensible and destructive to the country. They should be roundly condemned by all lest they become the norm.

Share this post


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

Stop making shit up. I've made my assessment of this claim very clear which is that we will never see it resolved one way or the other. That position is clearly not blaming Democrats.

However the tactics they have used in this matter, publicizing the charge after the hearings have been closed and just before the vote, are reprehensible and destructive to the country. They should be roundly condemned by all lest they become the norm.

It IS the norm, thanks to Mitch.

Share this post


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

However the tactics they have used in this matter, publicizing the charge after the hearings have been closed and just before the vote, are reprehensible and destructive to the country. They should be roundly condemned by all lest they become the norm.

It's destructive for the country when a Supreme Court Nominee doesn't get a vote? Poor dear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's destructive for the country when a Supreme Court Nominee doesn't get a vote? Poor dear.

It's destructive when the confirmation process is sabotaged.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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

Do you stand by that statement as factual?  

Share this post


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

Do you stand by that statement as factual?  

Is it expressed as factual? Don't doggie style now.

Share this post


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

Is it expressed as factual? Don't doggie style now.

Yes it is.  Do you stand by the statements you presented?  

Share this post


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

Yes it is.  Do you stand by the statements you presented?  

I told you not to doggie style it.

Share this post


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

I told you not to doggie style it.

Is there something in your post that you are not willing to stand behind?  Would you like to retract it while you have the chance?  

Share this post


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

Is there something in your post that you are not willing to stand behind?  Would you like to retract it while you have the chance?  

By what authority will my chance to retract what I said be revoked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 2:58 PM, Sean said:

Murkowski and Collins. Those two have some tough choices to make. 

Why?  Just because they have a vagina too?  Are you implying that women never lie about sexual assault?

Share this post


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

However the tactics they have used in this matter, publicizing the charge after the hearings have been closed and just before the vote, are reprehensible and destructive to the country. They should be roundly condemned by all lest they become the norm.

Bullshit tactics by the duopoly parties to delay the vote on persons nominated to the Supreme Court is already the norm, Dog. Pretending that the Democrats are making it so after Garland is just partisan hypocrisy at it's richest. Which is why no-one is surprised to see it coming from you.

Share this post


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

Why?  Just because they have a vagina too?  Are you implying that women never lie about sexual assault?

no you misogynistic moron, because of their past statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 2:48 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

I said last night that it is debatable, whether an act done as a kid should destroy his life now. There are good arguments either way. Kids do stupid shit, that’s why they are allowed to seal their records. I think we need to know more at this point.

But liars do not belong on the bench, especially the highest bench in the land. And we know that lying under oath is grounds for impeachment.

I wholeheartedly agree.  If he is proven to have lied about it, like Bill did - he should be burned at the stake.  What do you think will be evadents of him having lied?  These are two people trying to recall details from 35 years ago.  I'm lucky if I remember my name from day to day much less what I did in HS.  

If it comes down to Kav + his friend judge saying the same story vs the accuser's story...... Then what?  Does she get an automatic +1 because of #MeToo???

Share this post


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

Bullshit tactics by the duopoly parties to delay the vote on persons nominated to the Supreme Court is already the norm, Dog. Pretending that the Democrats are making it so after Garland is just partisan hypocrisy at it's richest. Which is why no-one is surprised to see it coming from you.

Do you recall my position on the Garland nomination?

Share this post


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

By what authority will my chance to retract what I said be revoked?

You can revoke your bullshit and choose to be honest at any time, but I thought you might like a chance to do it before I bust you for switching the result of the case.  Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the foreclosure case against the accusers parents with prejudice, precluding the lender from coming after them again, and letting them stay in their home.  

Cite: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/power-elite-of-suburban-washington-split-over-kavanaugh-allegations-826318

So, by distorting the outcome in the case, were you trying to impugn her integrity by suggesting that she was lying about this because of some ulterior motive?  Would your distortion not be considered an attack on her?  

Do you teach your kids to lie like you do?  

Share this post


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

Do you recall my position on the Garland nomination?

I don't. Can you cite your contemporaneous position?

Share this post


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

I wholeheartedly agree.  If he is proven to have lied about it, like Bill did - he should be burned at the stake.  What do you think will be evadents of him having lied?  These are two people trying to recall details from 35 years ago.  I'm lucky if I remember my name from day to day much less what I did in HS.  

If it comes down to Kav + his friend judge saying the same story vs the accuser's story...... Then what?  Does she get an automatic +1 because of #MeToo???

After reading her description of what he did, my opinion changed.  She is not describing childhood stupidity.  She is describing a violent crime.  I look forward to seeing their testimony.  

Share this post


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

You are making assumptions about tactics being the main driver of timing and why & how this information came to light. 

We don’t know what steps Feinstein took, nor the limits she tried to impose on the information prior to the public release. We do know she tried to keep the info private and she says the reason was the accuser’s desire for anonymity.

You always ascribe negative motives for anything Dems do, but in this case Feinstein may well have thought an anonymous accuser’s statement less credible and therefore delayed release until she had permission to release more info publicly, or she may have waited until the FBI showed they weren’t going to help with due diligence before releasing info. She may not even have been the reason reporters got wind of the story in the first place. 

Many possible explanations, but to partisans like you, the only narrative is to blame DemocRats for the evil in the world. Grow up, Snowflake.

The info is credible enough and serious enough that some Republicans want to resolve the issue responsibly. Learn from your betters and study their example. 

The scenario as you describe it is plausible, Philly - it'll be interesting to see if appropriate caution and concern, as you describe, drove the timing, or if as Specious Eddie  is tingling in his assertions, it's a well-timed ploy to derail the confirmation.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Do you recall my position on the Garland nomination?

I do, and yet you're still pretending that bullshit tactics to delay SCOTUS nominations when there is a chance of changing the Congressional balance is not the norm. Partisan hypocrisy at it's richest. Completely unsurprising that you're the one indulging in it here.

Share this post


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

You can revoke your bullshit and choose to be honest at any time, but I thought you might like a chance to do it before I bust you for switching the result of the case.  Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the foreclosure case against the accusers parents with prejudice, precluding the lender from coming after them again, and letting them stay in their home.  

Cite: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/power-elite-of-suburban-washington-split-over-kavanaugh-allegations-826318

So, by distorting the outcome in the case, were you trying to impugn her integrity by suggesting that she was lying about this because of some ulterior motive?  Would your distortion not be considered an attack on her?  

Do you teach your kids to lie like you do?  

If I had distorted the outcome of the case I would retract it with or without your generous offer.

2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I don't. Can you cite your contemporaneous position?

I felt that the senate should have taken up the Garland nomination. It's in the record here somewhere.

Share this post


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

If I had distorted the outcome of the case I would retract it with or without your generous offer.

I felt that the senate should have taken up the Garland nomination. It's in the record here somewhere.

So you don't recall either. That makes two of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Raz'r said:

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

FIFY

Share this post


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

If I had distorted the outcome of the case I would retract it with or without your generous offer.

And yet you're still waffling about Sol and not stating whether or not you plan to stand behind the claims in the post you made. Come on, Dog, show you have some spine for once.

Share this post


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

If I had distorted the outcome of the case I would retract it with or without your generous offer.

I felt that the senate should have taken up the Garland nomination. It's in the record here somewhere.

You did, when you posted that "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".  You inverted the outcome of the case.  Are you not attacking the victim by lying about this and implying a negative motive for her accusation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The scenario as you describe it is plausible, Philly - it'll be interesting to see if appropriate caution and concern, as you describe, drove the timing, or if as Specious Eddie  is tingling in his assertions, it's a well-timed ploy to derail the confirmation.  

I keep seeing the "well timed" mentioned a lot. My thought? Why come forward, if he is a slam dunk or has no chance why expose your personal life to the hate filled RW machine? If she were my wife I certainly would not want her drug through the muck.  Since it is a tipping point then it makes sense and anyone who thinks a woman like her would do this just for attention is pathetic and has no idea what it entails.  I would suggest watching the recent interview that Anita Hill did - most enlightening. 

Share this post


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

So you don't recall either. That makes two of us.

No....I clearly recall it.

Share this post


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

You did, when you posted that "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".  You inverted the outcome of the case.  Are you not attacking the victim by lying about this and implying a negative motive for her accusation? 

Nope...That's Limbaugian clip...BAD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
22 hours 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.

Slut shaming????  Really?  So if a woman accuses sexual harassment, pointing out that it's still just an allegation at this point is slut shaming?  Are you suggesting that women never lie or never get it wrong or never exaggerate or never misremember events?  Ever?  Its now somehow misogyny to point out that nothing is proven yet and that allegations are still..... allegations???  REALLY?

Share this post


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

Nope...That's Limbaugian clip...BAD

21 hours 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

You posted those alleged facts here - do you stand by them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lark said:

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.   

ZACTLY!

Share this post


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

Slut shaming????  Really?  So if a woman accuses sexual harassment, pointing out that it's still just an allegation at this point is slut shaming?  Are you suggesting that women never lie or never get it wrong or never exaggerate or never misremember events?  Ever?  Its now somehow misogyny to point out that nothing is proven yet and that allegations are still..... allegations???  REALLY?

false accusations from the woman herself are actually pretty rare https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

Share this post


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

Slut shaming????  Really?  So if a woman accuses sexual harassment, pointing out that it's still just an allegation at this point is slut shaming?  Are you suggesting that women never lie or never get it wrong or never exaggerate or never misremember events?  Ever?  Its now somehow misogyny to point out that nothing is proven yet and that allegations are still..... allegations???  REALLY?

her story seems legit and corroborated as best as it could be, for something 35 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

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

Sol, I think this is a good thing.  They both need to be heard.  And then what???  She says he did it, and he says he didn't and wasn't there.  Without some corroborating evidence either way, then what?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

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. 

Nope, sorry dude.  YOU called her a slut.  Own it.

Share this post


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

You posted those alleged facts here - do you stand by them?

In other words, Dog got caught Doggy Styling again.  These goofballs keep going back to the same type of goofball sites to get information that tells them what they want to hear, and having it blow up in their face time and time and time again, when it is proven to be false.  At some point, the person repeating bullshit becomes a bullshitter.  Dog wasn't always a bullshitter, but his pattern here demonstrates that he certainly has become one, as his cited post demonstrates yet again.  

Share this post


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

Sol, I think this is a good thing.  They both need to be heard.  And then what???  She says he did it, and he says he didn't and wasn't there.  Without some corroborating evidence either way, then what?  

Then in keeping with our best traditions the presumption of innocence prevails.....Hahahaha

Share this post


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

Sol, I think this is a good thing.  They both need to be heard.  And then what???  She says he did it, and he says he didn't and wasn't there.  Without some corroborating evidence either way, then what?  

It is a good thing.  I think I'll wait to see what they have to say before judging it.  I want to see their demeanor, whether they dodge questions, etc.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You posted those alleged facts here - do you stand by them?

Posting allegations that others have made does not, to the fairminded, make the poster responsible for them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Posting allegations that others have been made does not, to the fairminded, make the poster responsible for them.

And yet it is reasonable to ascertain why someone would introduce those allegations into a discussion and whether that person stands behind the veracity of the allegations they bring to the conversation.

So once again Dog, do you stand behind the claims you raised in this thread in that post or not? It's a simple yes or no question. Stop tap-dancing around it, grow a spine, and answer the question.

Share this post


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

And yet it is reasonable to ascertain why someone would introduce those allegations into a discussion and whether that person stands behind the veracity of the allegations they bring to the conversation.

So once again Dog, do you stand behind the claims you raised in this thread in that post or not? It's a simple yes or no question. Stop tap-dancing around it, grow a spine, and answer the question.

Why should I stand behind claims that I'm not responsible for?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Considering Kavanno's addiction problem at the time, the story of the accuser is very believable.  If he lies about this, he's toast.  Gone.  Adios.  May even lose his fed judgeship.  Karma is a bitch.  #MeToo

 

15 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Kavannope has written a book on his alcohol abuse and addiction from this time period.  He knows he was capable of this assault.  May have even told the GOP about it.  Why did they try to hide it?  Why did they have 65 women lined up to refute it?  

 

Why are you deliberately lying?  Kavanaugh was never addicted to anything or wrote this book.  I know there are some stupid people here on this board that will accept your BS at face value and run with it.  But you know you're deliberately lying and its not even amusing.  Just stop.

Share this post


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

Why should I stand behind claims that I'm not responsible for?

So if someone tells you an unfounded rumor and you tell a 3rd person, you're not responsible for your actions?  What are you, 12?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I think about it, these SCOTUS appointments are really far more important than any other appointed or elective office. I wonder why we tie our collective hands and are satisfied with taking a candidate's word for where they stand on things?

People lie. And leaving waterboarding out of it, with polygraphs, chemicals, and hypnosis available, the technology exists to truly know a candidate's feelings on issues.

Let's get K loosened up a little and ask him how he feels about Negroes in the country club's pool, why white collar criminals get special treatment, LA greasers with guns, super smart slopes at Harvard, Scarlett and Colin(?), Ariana and Pete (?), extending interstate commerce to craziness, poll taxes, states' rights, Ronan Ferrell, Trump's unsung successes, voodoo vaccinations, modern sexual mores, cop-killing music, sucking huge mushroom-headed short dicks, ignorant white trailer trash, a symbolic black place-holder on the high court, Jews in general (you know he can't stand Jews), mixed marriages, fags French kissing, beating off with Beyonce, shaved pussy, grassy knolls, flavored douches, Sen. Collins' speech patterns, jumping hot teenagers, combovers and rugs, Catholic priests, Scalia's death, Ivanka's breasts and all the other issues of the times.

I'm not a certified psychic but I gots me some ideas about his answers. And so do you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

So if someone tells you an unfounded rumor and you tell a 3rd person, you're not responsible for your actions?  What are you, 12?

Should we be held responsible for the content of every quote we cite...What are you, 9?

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Why should I stand behind claims that I'm not responsible for?

Going forward, what exactly are you responsible for?

1 minute ago, Dog said:

Should we be held responsible for the content of every quote we cite...What are you, 9?

You were given the opportunity to vet+retract your cite well after you posted it.

Share this post


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

Should we be held responsible for the content of every quote we cite...What are you, 9?

Why would you bother citing it, except that you thought it supported your argument that the witness is tainted?

Share this post


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

After reading her description of what he did, my opinion changed.  She is not describing childhood stupidity.  She is describing a violent crime.  I look forward to seeing their testimony.  

As do I.... but you ignored my question.  If the testimony is she said / he said with no corroborating evidence either way.  Then what?  

Share this post


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

Should we be held responsible for the content of every quote we cite...What are you, 9?

I look forward to the next time you chide someone for a post that turns out to be inaccurate/nonfactual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is an overriding factor. At least PA knows that. Let's see if the US Senate is willing to find the truth. One person is lying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
44 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Slut shaming????  Really?  So if a woman accuses sexual harassment, pointing out that it's still just an allegation at this point is slut shaming?  Are you suggesting that women never lie or never get it wrong or never exaggerate or never misremember events?  Ever?  Its now somehow misogyny to point out that nothing is proven yet and that allegations are still..... allegations???  REALLY?

her story seems legit and corroborated as best as it could be, for something 35 years ago.

Corroborated by what???  Her own account to someone else?  And that someone else (her shrink) did not have names of the alleged attacker in her therapy notes?  Really?  

Share this post


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

It is a good thing.  I think I'll wait to see what they have to say before judging it.  I want to see their demeanor, whether they dodge questions, etc.  

So counselor..... is demeanor and question dodging typically grounds for conviction?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know what the law allows there.

Share this post


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

Truth is an overriding factor. At least PA knows that. Let's see if the US Senate is willing to find the truth. One person is lying. 

Not necessarily.

She remembers being afraid and forced.

He remembers, well, nothing it seems, given his propensity to be a drunk partier, that's not surprising.

 

Whether a guy should be passed over for the Supremes for being a drunken boor as a kid is then up to the Senate to figure out.

 

Share this post


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

given his propensity to be a drunk partier,

'Propensity'?  Really?  Do tell.  Or are you confusing the other guy with K like Specious Fuckhead is?

Share this post


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

'Propensity'?  Really?  Do tell.  Or are you confusing the other guy with K like Specious Fuckhead is?

Based on his buddies book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So counselor..... is demeanor and question dodging typically grounds for conviction?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know what the law allows there.

Kavanaugh is not on trial and he will not be convicted on Monday. However, both Senators and the public will decide on his credibility. Also, it appears that the Republicans are resisting hearing from any corroborating witnesses.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-resist-additional-witnesses-at-next-kavanaugh-hearing_us_5ba116ece4b04d32ebfd216b

Share this post


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

Based on his buddies book.

Both of them. Bart O'Kavanaugh liked to party. And there are  other comments.

I still think the denial of "I wasn't at that party" is... odd. It could be me being a Dog and seizing on a bit of legal speak but it just seems weird to remember a party you didn't go to in high school specifically.

Share this post


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

'Propensity'?  Really?  Do tell.  Or are you confusing the other guy with K like Specious Fuckhead is?

So how do you like Prep?” Mary asked.

“It’s cool.”

“Do you know Bart O’Kavanaugh?”

“Yeah. He’s around here somewhere.”

“I heard he puked in someone’s car the other night.”

“Yeah. He passed out on his way back from a party.”

Share this post


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

Why should I stand behind claims that I'm not responsible for?

I'm not saying you should or you shouldn't stand for anything. I am asking if you stand behind the claims you are responsible for bringing into the conversation. Grow a spine and answer the question.

Share this post


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

Should we be held responsible for the content of every quote we cite...What are you, 9?

When you won't back down from it or acknowledge it's falsity? Fuck yes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

As do I.... but you ignored my question.  If the testimony is she said / he said with no corroborating evidence either way.  Then what?  

I did not ignore it.  I said I look forward to seeing their testimony.  In another post, I was a bit more specific.  " I think I'll wait to see what they have to say before judging it.  I want to see their demeanor, whether they dodge questions, etc."  That's what I mean by "seeing" their testimony instead of reading a transcript of it.  There is a big doctrine of case law about appellate judges not substituting their judgment for trial judges, who had the advantage of being able to see witnesses and notice their demeanor and the like.  

I am still skeptical that we will get to see it, but I really want to see them both testify.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol, 

What if several other women come forward this week and make similar claims from that timeframe.  Will they be able to testify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So counselor..... is demeanor and question dodging typically grounds for conviction?  I'm asking because I honestly don't know what the law allows there.

Weighing the bearing, demeanor and credibility of witnesses happens every day and is an age old tenet in arguing against Appellate fact-finding.  The trier of fact (trial judge or jury in jury cases) is in a position to weigh those elements bearing on witness credibility, and someone reading a transcript is not.  There's a brief discussion of it here, and that's all the free research I am doing today....  Look for the paragraph that begins "we concur".  

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1817441116443808450&q=demeanor+of+the+witnesses&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10

Witness testimony gets weight against other witness testimony every day.  I look forward to doing that next Monday.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

Sol, 

What if several other women come forward this week and make similar claims from that timeframe.  Will they be able to testify?

With several women coming forward with reasonable claims, I don't think Kav's nomination would do anything but evaporate. I doubt anyone would have to testify.

Share this post


Link t