Kavanaugh
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, June 10, 2022 18:02
VIEWED: 48592
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The rest of this quote is a great example of why you shouldn't use broad, sweeping generalizations.
The sh*t you post! You were the one I called out for saying, "she's using false accusations..." and you couldn't stand up and be accountable for.... using sweeping generalizations that you also couldn't back up. "How do you know?" Silence.
And now more sweeping generalizations, "It's a MeToo thing."
Damn dude.
Right G, dead on.
T
Nope. Already been replied to and debunked.
Anyways.... Got more important shit to do. Enjoy your cringy whine fest this weekend.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bottom line, we all know the democrats played politics as they always do but at times that's justified. The republicans played politics going back to denying Obama's Supreme Court pick. They denied him a hearing when Obama had 10 months left on his term.
No matter what the democrats were up to the facts had to be conducive to them voting no, and making the case as to why he is unfit to occupy a Supreme Court seat. A good enough case to block his nomination. The facts were conducive.
At this point the case has been made but this man may still be confirmed and that's very troubling. That's the bottom line and sig and Jack are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees as are so many others. Imagine, many have said this man should be confirmed even if the charges against him are true. Wow, that's sick.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I wasn't silent. I was very clear when I said that given the high political stakes here and the fact that the illiberal, regressive Leftitst have made crying Rape one of their go-to moves along with calling everyone a Nazi, I would have been more surprised if he wasn't accused of rape than I am that he was.
Nice try. I guess you weren't "silent" you just dodged answering the question because you didn't have the nerve to back up what you said. You even tried to qualify from 100% to "I'm 50-50 on everything...". You simply can't admit you made a bullsh*t, sweeping generalization about her. You had no ideas about her or her story but that ignorance didn't stop you from saying, "she's making unfounded allegations!"
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Me saying that that this is a false accusation is not broad, nor is it sweeping. It's a very targeted accusation on my part. And as far as "how do I know?"
Let me put it this way. I have just as much evidence that she threw out a false accusation as she has backing up her accusation.
Dear gawd. You weren't even involved, so just by that huge distinction you have zero evidence compared to the actual living through it evidence she has. Your logic is such sh*t. You should spend more time here asking questions than making statements.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do me a favor and Google Kavanaugh #MeToo
But yeah. I guess I'm just making that shit up. lol
You seriously can't read, or like SIGGY, just prefer to act stupid.
I said: "I don't see many posters talking about Me Too. #MeToo is certainly a part of this, but that's not what I'm most concerned with (because unfortunately you can't go back and charge "Brettski" with attempted rape). It's a "who do we want on the Supreme Court," movement. The fact that male contempt and disrespect for women is such a big part of it is telling and sickening. We should be so much further along as a society."
I said posters, HERE, in case you need clarification.
I also said, "#MeToo is certainly a part of this, but that's not what I'm most concerned with..."
You dig?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we are further along in society. I think the Republicans know that, and they're doing everything they can to hang on to the old power structures they depend on. Packing the SCOTUS with reichwing Jesus freaks who see women as "handmaidens" is how they plan to do it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, there was a third Asian woman involved, who provided an allegation with NO DATE AND NO PLACE (Was it the parking lot? The front lobby? Five years ago? Six?) much like Blasey-Ford. (Also, I read the investigation report.)
I've seen a lot of different behavior from all kinds of people; after a while you just realize that they're all individuals. - SIGNY
Unless they're part of an Asian Lady Gang you mean. You do see how you just removed their individuality and packaged them into a group so you could dismiss or demean their actions, right? - GSTRING
So, there were three women, all Asian, who would gather in a little group in a private corner of the lab before and after every step of the investigation, looking sideways at XXX if he happened to walk by ... it was pretty obvious what was going on.
They were Asian, they were women, and they ganged up on somebody. Hence Asian lady gang.
Quote:
To Siggy: You sound just like a bro. - GSTRING
You think "sounding like a bro" is an insult??
PREJUDICED MUCH?
If you were to read California law, you would realize that there is only ONE "unprotected class" here, and that is white young-to-middle aged hetero Xtian men. Any other class is protected from harassment by virtue of their sex, religion, color, sexual preference, age, etc. Since when did a group of people get "fair game" painted on their backs? Aren't we supposed to be professionally respectful of EVERYONE we work with, and not gang up/bully anyone on ANY grounds?
Dood, I supervised somewhere between 6-13 people of the course of 20 years with the threat of lawsuit hanging over my head that whole time, I had to be FAIR. I had to stick to EVIDENCE. I couldn't write a performance appraisal or participate in an investigation without knowing AND DOCUMENTING the who, what, when, where, and how. The "why" was something I steered the hell away from. One thing that was pounded into my head over the years was that you had to stick to observable actions, you couldn't opine or suspect or guess.
*****
There is ONE thing I learned from this whole mess: I always wondered why harassment investigations and hearings are so fucked up. Now I know that they fall into a separate class called "Title IX" hearings, which are not conducted like normal courtroom proceedings. Title IX investigations and hearings are designed to protect the complainant's identity. There were some pretty interesting twists as a result; the one that sticks out for me was when I was told to tell someone I can't tell you the complaint because you'd identify the person but whatever it is that you're doing you'll have to stop. I wish I was kidding!
Are they constructed this way because women are more easily frightened, and must therefore be saved from being scared? Or is it because the complaints usually point upwards, and therefore ANY complainant has the right to be protected from retribution?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The Kavanaugh affair has produced millions of words of comment. At this point, it’s a purely partisan fight.
Yup.Quote:
I think pretty much everyone — Democrat and Republican alike — does know the truth of what happened: yada yada yada
The rest of this quote is a great example of why you shouldn't use broad, sweeping generalizations. Only people living in an echo chamber believe that statement to be the truth.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Nobody living around me thinks Ford's story was nothing. But I do. The Democrats near me believe Ford and believe she needs to be avenged! She was wronged by Kavanaugh. I do NOT believe that. I do NOT think her 35 years of ill mental health needs fixing by keeping Kavanaugh out of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Republicans near me think that Ford is a liar, and even if Ford's story is true, so what of it?
I am in a very select group that thinks that something is seriously wrong with Kavanaugh, right here and now, not the teenage Kavanaugh from 35 years ago. Kavanaugh reminds me of Bill Clinton saying I did not have sex with that woman, while he was on national TV. If Bill wasn't stupid, he would have apologized and saved himself a lot of trouble. Apologies are cheap. Kavanaugh should know that, too, because he worked on impeaching Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh should have apologized for his uncouth teen years and easily saved himself a lot of trouble.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But only if he did what he was accused of. Otherwise, you're advocating that he apologize for something he didn't do, which itself would be disturbing.
I am in a very select group that thinks that something is seriously wrong with Kavanaugh, right here and now, not the teenage Kavanaugh from 35 years ago. Kavanaugh reminds me of Bill Clinton saying I did not have sex with that woman, while he was on national TV. If Bill wasn't stupid, he would have apologized and saved himself a lot of trouble. Apologies are cheap. Kavanaugh should know that, too, because he worked on impeaching Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh should have apologized for his uncouth teen years and easily saved himself a lot of trouble. -SECOND
I agree that there was something hinky going on. Having seen both Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh, I think there was "hinky" all the way around. MY impression is that Ford was testifying as directed by the GOP on the Judiciary Committee because he was so ready to defer to the Committee, and that the Committee was concerned about politics/timing. But of course he could be sweating bullets because he WAS guilty and he knew it, so maybe that's just me.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In any case, the FBI is on the case.
Judge says that's he's ready to answer any and all questions that the FBI puts to him (BTW people are not compelled to be interviewed by the FBI, they have to volunteer, so Judge is ready to volunteer.)
The investigation is supposed to be "limited in scope" ... I don't know if that means it's limited to Blasey-Ford's allegation or includes other allegations, but it's going to be done in a week. Presumably there will be more information when it's done.
IMHO there's no point in discussing this without further info.
******
SECOND, you have concerns about Kavanaugh's judicial record. Aside from his apparently unique belief that Presidents can't be indicted (or something) what else bothers you?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More Brett Kavanaugh Classmates Are Saying He Lied to Congress
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/more-brett-kavanaugh-clas
smates-are-saying-he-lied-to-congress/
Of course he lied. A lot. He lied when he got appointed to his current job. We all know that. Why would the Republicans want a known liar on the SCOTUS?
Well, I can think of a few reasons. They are absolutely not mutually exclusive:
He's going to rule in the Executive Branch's favor in the upcoming Gamble v US case, allowing Trump to effectively pardon state crimes.
A sitting SCOTUS justice with a compromised past gives them leverage.
Installing an obviously unqualified SCOTUS justice in a nakedly partisan and corrupt process will erode faith in the court and our institutions in general. This fits the Republican narrative.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never fear - the FBI is on the case! I wish I had more trust in the institution, but at least there'll be an investigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-inves
tigation/index.html
"... Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, sided with Democrats who had asked the FBI to look into allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford when the two were teenagers in Maryland. The investigation will also look into an allegation made by Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a party when they were students at Yale University ..."
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Never fear - the FBI is on the case! I wish I had more trust in the institution, but at least there'll be an investigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-inves
tigation/index.html
This is what my previous post was all about. Eroding faith in our institutions, egged on by Russian trolls.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You must mean Russian trolls like CNN and the NYTimes and USAToday.
FBI, Justice Dept. riddled with anti-Donald Trump, pro-Clinton bias
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/justice...fbi.../704
815002/
Jun 15, 2018 - When is political bias not political bias? When it is ... “FBI Employee” consoled Attorney 2 that “Trump's supporters are all poor to middle class, ...
F.B.I. Agents Gave Trump a Weapon Against Mueller. Republicans Are ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/.../politics/fbi-ig-report-house-heari
ng-republicans.ht...
Jun 19, 2018 - Though the report focused on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and found no evidence that political bias ...
If you want to know whether Strzok was biased, just look at his texts ...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/opinions/strzok-hearing-bias-opinion...
/index.html
Jul 14, 2018 - FBI agent Peter Strzok's bias against then-candidate Donald Trump is ... political analysts professed to hear nothing new in FBI agent Peter ...
Peter Strzok fired from the FBI - CNNPolitics - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/politics/peter-strzok-fired-fbi/index.h
tml
Aug 13, 2018 - The FBI has fired Peter Strzok, an agent who was removed from the ... had an extramarital affair, that could be read as exhibiting political bias.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I'm talking about you, Russian troll.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
No, I'm talking about you, Russian troll.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The institutions themselves are the cause of "eroding faith". When the M$M and the "intelligence" agencies consistently lie to promote war, and our "security state" institutes universal surveillance, and the political parties promote ridiculous conspiracy theories and identity politics and the "wealth gap" ... and we find out about it ... well, then.
This is what my previous post was all about. Eroding faith in our institutions
I'm not a big believer in blind faith. Our institutions can earn back our trust, but they'll have to stop pandering to the elite in order to do it.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:The institutions themselves are the cause of "eroding faith".
This is what my previous post was all about. Eroding faith in our institutions
You quote zerohedge. Your concept of what is truthful and what is not disqualifies you from making judgements concerning honest institutions. I'll give you a hint. Mainstream means where most people get their information. Why, because they have the highest level of trust even in the worst of times.
You're by far the one who posts the most fake information in these threads. Laughable sig, your opinions are laughable. And I see once again you are quoting and having a conversation with yourself.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
This is what my previous post was all about. Eroding faith in our institutions, egged on by Russian trolls.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You must mean Russian trolls like CNN and the NYTimes and USAToday.
FBI, Justice Dept. riddled with anti-Donald Trump, pro-Clinton bias
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/justice...fbi.../704
815002/
Jun 15, 2018 - When is political bias not political bias? When it is ... “FBI Employee” consoled Attorney 2 that “Trump's supporters are all poor to middle class, ...
F.B.I. Agents Gave Trump a Weapon Against Mueller. Republicans Are ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/.../politics/fbi-ig-report-house-heari
ng-republicans.ht...
Jun 19, 2018 - Though the report focused on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and found no evidence that political bias ...
If you want to know whether Strzok was biased, just look at his texts ...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/opinions/strzok-hearing-bias-opinion...
/index.html
Jul 14, 2018 - FBI agent Peter Strzok's bias against then-candidate Donald Trump is ... political analysts professed to hear nothing new in FBI agent Peter ...
Peter Strzok fired from the FBI - CNNPolitics - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/politics/peter-strzok-fired-fbi/index.h
tml
Aug 13, 2018 - The FBI has fired Peter Strzok, an agent who was removed from the ... had an extramarital affair, that could be read as exhibiting political bias.
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
No, I'm talking about you, Russian troll.
Quote:Maybe you need to have a talk with RF about his serious mistrust in CNN and the NYTimes and USAToday, as agents of Russian propaganda.
Originally posted by THG:
You quote zerohedge. Your concept of what is truthful and what is not disqualifies you from making judgements concerning honest institutions. I'll give you a hint. Mainstream means where most people get their information. Why, because they have the highest level of trust even in the worst of times.
You're by far the one who posts the most fake information in these threads. Laughable sig, your opinions are laughable. And I see once again you are quoting and having a conversation with yourself.
T
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Truth is not determined by who "most people" trust.
You quote zerohedge. Your concept of what is truthful and what is not disqualifies you from making judgements concerning honest institutions. I'll give you a hint. Mainstream means where most people get their information. Why, because they have the highest level of trust even in the worst of times.
At one time, most people trusted the church and believed that the earth was flat. At one time, most people trusted their shamans and believed that disease was caused by a curse. Or, to put it another way ... A billion flies eat shit. Why should I care who "most people" trust?
HOW do we determine what is true and what is not? HOW do we make sense of the welter of conflicting opinions? There is the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Unbearable Dishonesty of Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Truth is not determined by who "most people" trust.
You quote zerohedge. Your concept of what is truthful and what is not disqualifies you from making judgements concerning honest institutions. I'll give you a hint. Mainstream means where most people get their information. Why, because they have the highest level of trust even in the worst of times.
At one time, most people trusted the church and believed that the earth was flat. At one time, most people trusted their shamans and believed that disease was caused by a curse. Or, to put it another way ... A billion flies eat shit. Why should I care who "most people" trust?
HOW do we determine what is true and what is not? HOW do we make sense of the welter of conflicting opinions? There is the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
by Briahna Gray, Camille Baker
September 29 2018, 6:00 a.m.
Many of us who watched Thursday’s Senate hearing spent much of the time cataloguing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s lies. After hours of testimony, during which Dr. Christine Blasey Ford answered questions about her alleged sexual assault, the financing behind her lie-detector test, and whether she was really afraid of flying, viewers were treated to more hours of testimony from Kavanaugh, a federal judge who struggled to give a single straight answer.
Kavanaugh strained credulity when he argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the “Devil’s Triangle” — a phrase that appeared on his high school yearbook page — referred to a drinking game, a definition which, before Thursday, you’d have a hard time finding anywhere. (It actually refers to a sex act involving two men and a woman). He also unabashedly claimed that the term “boof” is a reference to “flatulence,” rather than other butt stuff, and that “ralph,” which means to vomit — implicitly from the overconsumption of alcohol — was a reference to Kavanaugh’s weak stomach.
Kavanaugh claimed references to “Renate Alumnius” in his yearbook were allusions to his friendship with classmate Renate Schroeder Dolphin, and not, as many understood, a sexist smear about her promiscuity. (Dolphin told the New York Times days before the hearing: “I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue.”) Kavanaugh even claimed to not really know Ford at all, despite her testimony that she “went out with” one of his close friends — someone whose name appeared in his now notorious calendar 13 times.
Kavanaugh’s choice to lie about things that are easily disproved speaks to a kind of hubris, or entitlement, that befits someone of his pedigree.
More at https://theintercept.com/2018/09/29/the-unbearable-dishonesty-of-brett
-kavanaugh/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is no chance Trolls have heard of it.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Truth is not determined by who "most people" trust.
You quote zerohedge. Your concept of what is truthful and what is not disqualifies you from making judgements concerning honest institutions. I'll give you a hint. Mainstream means where most people get their information. Why, because they have the highest level of trust even in the worst of times.
At one time, most people trusted the church and believed that the earth was flat. At one time, most people trusted their shamans and believed that disease was caused by a curse. Or, to put it another way ... A billion flies eat shit. Why should I care who "most people" trust?
HOW do we determine what is true and what is not? HOW do we make sense of the welter of conflicting opinions? There is the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it?
OTOH, quite a few people believe in:
Jesus Christ
Global Warming
Prophet Mohammed
AIDS
Dahli Lhama
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You guys hear about this one:
"Prove it! Michael Avenatti clears up that whole 4chan rumor thing … or DOES he? "
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/25/prove-it-michael-avenatti
-clears-up-that-whole-4chan-rumor-thing-or-does-he/
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kavanaugh is far too partisan and angry to be on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh decided that to have any chance to reach the court, he would have to shed the pretense he was a fair-minded, calm, judicious thinker. He came out in the afternoon filled with venom, screaming at the committee. His life was being ruined, he claimed. This was a Clinton-like smear. His anger was both frightening and unexpected — if you thought he was that intellectual whom conservatives have swooned over. He yelled, and he cried. If you thought he was sincere, one could also appreciate how partisan and emotional he had become.
The shouting didn’t end with his opening statement. He barked at the ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Then the Republicans got into the screaming act, pushing their outside lawyer Rachel Mitchell aside in favor of histrionics from Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John Cornyn, R-Texas. If President Donald Trump loved the nasty, male grievance game, the rest of us had reason to wonder if anyone of this temperament — Cornyn, Graham or Kavanaugh — should be in a position of power. If they were women, they would be called “hysterical.”
Kavanaugh, as of this writing, made a couple major errors.
First, he refused to call for an FBI investigation (even when Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois invited him to ask it of White House counsel Donald McGahn). When Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., questioned about his friend Mark Judge, Kavanaugh slipped and said “you’d have to ask [Judge]”, who of course the Republicans refuse to summon as a witness. The refusal to get the facts is both a telling admission of concern about what they would find and a violation the judicial goal of truth-seeking. It’s a political calculation, exactly what you don’t want to see from a judge.
His anger toward liberals is palpable, his lack of humility bracing. He has the partisan mind-set that opponents are unworthy of respect. His heart is that of a conservative partisan, one who tried so very hard to make himself into Supreme Court material. The mentality of a political operative - willing to go on Fox News, ready to inflame passions, disrespectful toward opponents - is still there. A nonpartisan would ask for, if not demand, an FBI investigation and Judge’s appearance.
More at www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/This-nominee-is-far-t
oo-partisan-and-angry-to-be-13267464.php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You must mean Russian trolls like CNN and the NYTimes and USAToday.
FBI, Justice Dept. riddled with anti-Donald Trump, pro-Clinton bias
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/justice...fbi.../704
815002/
Jun 15, 2018 - When is political bias not political bias? When it is ... “FBI Employee” consoled Attorney 2 that “Trump's supporters are all poor to middle class, ...
F.B.I. Agents Gave Trump a Weapon Against Mueller. Republicans Are ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/.../politics/fbi-ig-report-house-heari
ng-republicans.ht...
Jun 19, 2018 - Though the report focused on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server and found no evidence that political bias ...
If you want to know whether Strzok was biased, just look at his texts ...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/opinions/strzok-hearing-bias-opinion...
/index.html
Jul 14, 2018 - FBI agent Peter Strzok's bias against then-candidate Donald Trump is ... political analysts professed to hear nothing new in FBI agent Peter ...
Peter Strzok fired from the FBI - CNNPolitics - CNN.com
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/13/politics/peter-strzok-fired-fbi/index.h
tml
Aug 13, 2018 - The FBI has fired Peter Strzok, an agent who was removed from the ... had an extramarital affair, that could be read as exhibiting political bias.
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I bet at this point that if he gets sworn in he's going to be the most partisan judge there ever was.
The entire Left has come at him, attacked him and his family, and has viewed him as guilty from the second the accusation was made.
Anybody who has any empathy at all can see that.
And if he does get sworn in, the way this entire thing was handled is going to be one in a growing line of extremely poor decisions the Democrats have made in recent years.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Well, there was a third Asian woman involved, who provided an allegation with NO DATE AND NO PLACE (Was it the parking lot? The front lobby? Five years ago? Six?) much like Blasey-Ford. (Also, I read the investigation report.)
I've seen a lot of different behavior from all kinds of people; after a while you just realize that they're all individuals. - SIGNY
Unless they're part of an Asian Lady Gang you mean. You do see how you just removed their individuality and packaged them into a group so you could dismiss or demean their actions, right? - GSTRING
So, there were three women, all Asian, who would gather in a little group in a private corner of the lab before and after every step of the investigation, looking sideways at XXX if he happened to walk by ... it was pretty obvious what was going on.
They were Asian, they were women, and they ganged up on somebody. Hence Asian lady gang.
Hence, you no longer thought of them as individuals as you bragged about earlier.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You think "sounding like a bro" is an insult??
PREJUDICED MUCH?
Well, it was meant as one. Are you sure you know what "bro" means?
Yes, totally PREJUDICED against bros and bro behavior. It's childish and embarrassing - it's looks bad on young people and even worse in adults.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, can Kavanaugh decide a case based on the law rather than his feelings? Forty years from now, will Justice Kavanaugh still be bitter at long dead Senators who asked questions? If he can't act judicially during a job interview, when he is suppose to be on his best behavior, it would be a strong indication he won't be doing his best in the future, once he is a Supreme Court justice for life and there is no pressure, except from a Chief Justice to behave well. What is Kavanaugh going to do if the Chief Justice is, heaven forbid, a Democrat? Throw a tantrum?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I bet at this point that if he gets sworn in he's going to be the most partisan judge there ever was.
The entire Left has come at him, attacked him and his family, and has viewed him as guilty from the second the accusation was made.
Anybody who has any empathy at all can see that.
And if he does get sworn in, the way this entire thing was handled is going to be one in a growing line of extremely poor decisions the Democrats have made in recent years.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Saturday Night Live casts Matt Damon as Brett Kavanaugh.
Damon is from Boston and his big breakthrough, Good Will Hunting, vivisected the sort of rich kid prep school alumni/Ivy Leaguer types that populate that city in some of the movie’s most famous scenes. Damon knows these dudes, and in playing Kavanaugh he captured some essential part of the man, in a way that felt a little bit cathartic, even if you think Kavanaugh has been unjustly accused.
The sketch was mostly a collection of real moments from the hearing (including when Kavanaugh asked Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (played by cameo-ing former SNL star Rachel Dratch) if she had ever drank so much that she blacked out). But it was also just generally an attempt by Damon to capture Kavanaugh’s je ne sais quoi. He snorted and sniffed. He spilled water all over himself. He announced, up top, “I’m gonna start at about an 11, then I’m gonna take it to a 15 real quick!”
More at www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/30/17919106/saturday-night-live-premiere-ma
tt-damon-brett-kavanaugh-cold-open
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Art imitating life second. Good post...
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
So, can Kavanaugh decide a case based on the law rather than his feelings?
Tell me a single time that Sotomayor didn't vote along party lines.
The whole Supreme Court is a partisan hack job these days. There hasn't been objectivity there for decades.
I don't have to ask you why you feel it's so important that Kavanaugh's swearing in is blocked. You're the only one here attacking him for legitimate reasons instead of being a part of the Leftist hate mob.
Your answer to this question would have been the same 3 months ago as it is today.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMFingG !!!
I has forgotten about that! THANKS for the lol start of the day!
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I'm wondering is ... WHAT IF the FBI investigation shows nothing? Then what? Will facts move anyone's mind an angstrom's worth of distance?
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I wonder is why Trump is telling the press the FBI has free reign when the FBI is block from talking to all Kavanaugh's accusers. What's up with that shit???The White House gave the FBI a list of who they can speak with. What's up with that shit???
The most ironic thing about all this is that kiki and sig don't realize the people they are shading for believe they are second class citizens. So kiki since I am a man and you are a women you shouldn't be heard here. Your posts are hysterical because you are ruled by emotion and not logic. So, you should listen to what the men are saying and keeping your illogical rantings to yourself.
Watch this wind up as kiki's new signature.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is the obvious fact of Kavanaugh's testimony. Ford was polite and quiet in recounting her accusation against Kavanaugh; he was angry and loud in his denials of the allegations against him.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I'm wondering is ... WHAT IF the FBI investigation shows nothing? Then what? Will facts move anyone's mind an angstrom's worth of distance?
Both Ford and Kavanaugh fielded questions from senators and the prosecutor. But only Ford made an effort to answer every single question.
Kavanaugh actively dodged questions. He often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with “context” — which inevitably was a long story about his childhood — but never actually answered the question. Kavanaugh was practically shouting: “If you think I’m angry now, just wait until I get on that Supreme Court because then you’re all going to pay.”
Every time Ford and Kavanaugh did or did not answer a question
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1046093510515060745/photo/1
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652558787/what-difference-would-it-make
-if-the-fbi-were-to-investigate-kavanaugh
The FBI Is Going To Investigate Kavanaugh After All. What Does That Mean?
September 28, 201812:23 PM ET
Philip Ewing
A wild turn of events on Friday flipped a new FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from a long shot into a sure thing.
That was one result of an eleventh-hour agreement among the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee after a contentious session of offstage horse-trading.
The panel voted to recommend the embattled Kavanaugh to the full Senate on the condition that the final floor vote not take place until after the FBI conducted a background investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct confronting the nominee.
The inquiry would be "limited in scope" and completed within a week. The White House later Friday ordered the bureau to do just that. The FBI is expected to produce a report for the White House, which the administration would then give the Senate.
The compromise
Democrats and outside groups had been calling for the FBI's involvement since the allegations by Christine Blasey Ford and other women first surfaced that Kavanaugh had assaulted them or committed other such acts — allegations that Kavanaugh strongly denies.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., pitched the delay and new investigation to his compatriots, apparently setting that as his condition for ultimately supporting Kavanaugh on the Senate floor.
Republican leaders, who need every vote they can get to confirm the nominee, agreed. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, had opposed involving the FBI but said Friday he would take up Flake's case. Ultimately he secured an agreement with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "We've had a good day today by moving the nominee," Grassley told reporters. "A good day. We're very happy with the progress we've made."
Democrats said the compromise was the right move. "I think it will be better for the country that this FBI investigation occur," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told NPR. "I'm not sure what the answers will be. It's possible some of the witnesses won't even agree to talk with FBI. ... But to think we wouldn't even try would be the saddest thing for the country."
What happens next
The new deadline for a Kavanaugh vote is Oct. 5. Grassley asked President Trump to instruct the FBI to spend that week conducting interviews, reviewing documents and looking into the new accusations. The president agreed.
"The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today," Grassley said.
It wasn't immediately clear whether "current credible allegations" would mean the FBI would interview only people connected with Ford's case or with some of the other women who have come forward with allegations against Kavanaugh.
The FBI is unlikely to open a criminal investigation. Instead, its investigators are expected to pursue the same kind of background inquiry they have conducted on Kavanaugh in the past, focused on the new allegations.
The nominee said in a statement released by the White House that he would go along. "Throughout this process, I've been interviewed by the FBI, I've done a number of 'background' calls directly with the Senate, and yesterday, I answered questions under oath about every topic the Senators and their counsel asked me," Kavanaugh said. "I've done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate."
At least one key player in this drama also volunteered to talk: Mark Judge — a boyhood friend of Kavanaugh's who has been accused by FoNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I still think of them as individuals. HOWEVER, in THIS instance they acted together ... colluded ... conspired ... towards a common goal. It would be folly not to recognize that.
They were Asian, they were women, and they ganged up on somebody. Hence Asian lady gang. - SIGNY
Hence, you no longer thought of them as individuals as you bragged about earlier.- GSTRING
Quote:Yes, I know what "bro" means. My point was that you CLAIM to think of and treat people as individuals, you criticized me for calling a group of conspirators a "gang" and yet, there you are ... castigating an entire CATEGORY of totally unknown individuals.
You think "sounding like a bro" is an insult??
PREJUDICED MUCH? - SIGNY
Well, it was meant as one. Are you sure you know what "bro" means? - GSTRING
I mean, would it have been any different if you said "You sound like a Jew"? Isn't lumping people together like that ... in your mind ... an act of prejudice?
Just sayin'.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, I know what "bro" means. My point was that you CLAIM to think of and treat people as individuals, you criticized me for calling a group of conspirators a "gang" and yet, there you are ... castigating an entire CATEGORY of totally unknown individuals.
I mean, would it have been any different if you said "You sound like a Jew"? Isn't lumping people together like that ... in your mind ... an act of prejudice?
Just sayin'.
Completely different. I'm prejudiced against a behavior that defines a category. Do you think all Jews behave the same? Does a behavior constitute who is a Jew?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I'm prejudiced against a behavior that defines a category."
prej·u·dice
'prej?d?s/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
When a group of particular Asian women in fact get together to professionally persecute targeted individuals, describing them as Asian ladies who gang up on people isn't prejudice - it's a summary of observable facts.
When YOU, OTOH try to claim Signy posts 'like a bro' you're ascribing unevidenced, non-factual, PREJUDICIAL group characteristics to an individual. You are prejudiced.
THUGGER admits it's not about RUSSIA !!! and is, in fact, a witch hunt. "Trump better be innocent of any wrong doing, anywhere, anytime."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mother who backs Trump says men groping women is 'no big deal' in MSNBC interview
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/408691-msnbc-interviews-trump-suppo
rter-who-says-men-groping-women-is-no-big-deal
What a great thing to teach your kids.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Analytical precision is a big part of the job of a Supreme Court Justice. How should we view a federal judge who seems not to understand that he is not on trial, but at a job interview? Who, due to a lack of understanding, emotes as though the stakes were that of a criminal proceeding. It was concerning to hear a federal judge clamor for “due process” as he sidestepped opportunities to call witnesses, hear evidence, or have his name cleared by the FBI. (Not Kavanaugh but GOP Senator Flake called for the FBI. Trump approved using the FBI only because Flake, all by himself, could have sunk Kavanaugh with a NO vote.)
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Many Republicans say the due diligence on Kavanaugh already was complete. Now that the Judiciary Committee has voted to recommend him to the full Senate, they argue, the full chamber must decide.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How we know Kavanaugh is lying
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The democrats are hoping that this hail Mary pass will save the day. While I'm happy that there'll be at least some type of extra vetting - hail Mary passes rarely work irl. Unless there's some egregious heretofore unnoticed boulder of a problem, I don't think it will change the outcome.
Well, that's what you get when you've lost the Senate and House years ago - and then you lose the Presidency.
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, you are wrong per your usual. It is Jeffry Flake, the GOP Senator from Arizona who threw this pass, not the Democrats. And Flake only did it because he is retiring and some women who are NOT Democratic Congresswomen lobbied him. If it wasn't for Flake, Kavanaugh would already be on the Supreme Court because it was 11 Republicans, including Flake, versus 10 Democrats on the Justice Committee.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The democrats are hoping that this hail Mary pass will save the day. While I'm happy that there'll be at least some type of extra vetting - hail Mary passes rarely work irl. Unless there's some egregious heretofore unnoticed boulder of a problem, I don't think it will change the outcome.
Well, that's what you get when you've lost the Senate and House years ago - and then you lose the Presidency.
"Jeff Flake barely slept the night before he upended the battle for the Supreme Court. Flake shocked Washington with a dramatic last-minute call to delay the confirmation so that the FBI could spend a week investigating the accusation against Kavanaugh."
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/flake-kavanaugh-interview
/571735/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Somebody has been paying attention.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
So, can Kavanaugh decide a case based on the law rather than his feelings?
Tell me a single time that Sotomayor didn't vote along party lines.
The whole Supreme Court is a partisan hack job these days. There hasn't been objectivity there for decades.
I don't have to ask you why you feel it's so important that Kavanaugh's swearing in is blocked. You're the only one here attacking him for legitimate reasons instead of being a part of the Leftist hate mob.
Your answer to this question would have been the same 3 months ago as it is today.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Most of the time I see smartphones make their owners dumber. Far dumber, but delusioned into believing they are smarter. Troll inability to know context exacerbates this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Worth quoting
T
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Worth quoting
TQuote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Yup. I knew you were going to enjoy RF's torture porn.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Somebody has been paying attention.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
So, can Kavanaugh decide a case based on the law rather than his feelings?
Tell me a single time that Sotomayor didn't vote along party lines.
The whole Supreme Court is a partisan hack job these days. There hasn't been objectivity there for decades.
I don't have to ask you why you feel it's so important that Kavanaugh's swearing in is blocked. You're the only one here attacking him for legitimate reasons instead of being a part of the Leftist hate mob.
Your answer to this question would have been the same 3 months ago as it is today.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Pretty much makes me one in a million, if the mindless tribalism on the internet is something to judge the entire population on.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most of the time I see smartphones make their owners dumber. Far dumber, but delusioned into believing they are smarter. Troll inability to know context exacerbates this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
This video probably deserves its own thread.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Worth quoting
TQuote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Yup. I knew you were going to enjoy RF's torture porn.
Wow Jack, is that what you see when you look at the picture. Sick, and it explains a lot.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Worth quoting
Yup. I knew you were going to enjoy RF's torture porn.
Wow Jack, is that what you see when you look at the picture. Sick, and it explains a lot.
I just saw something that I knew you were going to love, and I wasn't at all surprised that when everybody else ignored it that you were the one to give it a like.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again Jack thinks he is brilliant because he knew something in hindsight. In other words after it took place. Great Jack, wonderful.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Most of the time I see smartphones make their owners dumber. Far dumber, but delusioned into believing they are smarter. Troll inability to know context exacerbates this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
This video probably deserves its own thread.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The Trolls won't get it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Again Jack thinks he is brilliant because he knew something in hindsight. In other words after it took place. Great Jack, wonderful.
T
Can't say I'm even sure what you're referring to here. Care to enlighten us?
EDIT: Oh, you mean that you enjoyed a cartoon with lady liberty being raped.
Nah. No crystal ball needed there. I'm sure nobody here is surprised that RF posted it or that you liked it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Trolls won't get it.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Most of the time I see smartphones make their owners dumber. Far dumber, but delusioned into believing they are smarter. Troll inability to know context exacerbates this.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Why, yes I did, thanks to google! Have you never used it? You should try it sometime! In this case I typed in * fbi biased political * and then copy /pasted the paragraphs from the results page, skipping any with known political leanings, like politico which came up first; or unsubstantiated claims like Strozk denying he was biased, which came up second; ... and so on.
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You had all of this ready to post 6 minutes after RF posted? Amazing skill Kiki.
And btw, you should never be amazed that anyone can be better and faster at this than you because - well, you and your cohorts really suck at information-gathering. You truly do. You are abysmal at it. A blind kindergärtner could do better.
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
This video probably deserves its own thread.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I could care less about trolls really. I'm trying to get my brother and sister in law to cut way back on their smartphone use and to stop letting my niece grow up with her own to watch videos on all the time.
It's fucking creepy on the rare occasion I go out to eat these days and I even see half the people older than me swiping away on those things like zombies instead of having conversations with each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You think that's bad? Smartphones may already have done permanent brain damage: We live in a world where the president routinely calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I could care less about trolls really. I'm trying to get my brother and sister in law to cut way back on their smartphone use and to stop letting my niece grow up with her own to watch videos on all the time.
It's fucking creepy on the rare occasion I go out to eat these days and I even see half the people older than me swiping away on those things like zombies instead of having conversations with each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.
More at www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/opinion/james-comey-fbi-kavanaugh-investiga
tion.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And yet you seem immune to the fact that far more Liberal smartphone users are incongruously dumbed down compared to the Rational Right users, while being far less able to afford it, having far less cerebral capability to begin with since they are Liberals.
Originally posted by second:Quote:You think that's bad? Smartphones may already have done permanent brain damage: We live in a world where the president routinely calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I could care less about trolls really. I'm trying to get my brother and sister in law to cut way back on their smartphone use and to stop letting my niece grow up with her own to watch videos on all the time.
It's fucking creepy on the rare occasion I go out to eat these days and I even see half the people older than me swiping away on those things like zombies instead of having conversations with each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.
The good news, sort of, for Democrats and other Liberals is that this nonstop dumbing down of smartphone users will help keep adolescent Liberals remaining Liberals for longer, lacking knowledge necessary to escape this disease.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
#338
Holy shit that's a lot of posts!
Beginning to get a "bead" on Kavanaugh's past behavior; he was very careful testifying about his drinking habits. He didn't lie but he didn't tell the truth either. For example, altho he was questioned closely and specifically if he had ever "blacked out" ... ever woke up not remembering, clothes in a different condition than what he last remembered, woke up some place not knowing how he got there ... and he denied all of that, he DID acknowledge drinking. When the Committee tried to get a "bead" on how much he drank, he answered "I drank beer". As if you can't get drunk on beer. Another evasion was about an entry in a college notebook (yearbook) about having to "piece together" the events of a baseball outing that he had organized; they asked him if he had forgotten parts of the event and he answered "No, I know what happened" (after he might have had to "piece together" events).
So overall I'd day he was being very very careful in describing his drinking habits.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
You think that's bad? Smartphones may already have done permanent brain damage: We live in a world where the president routinely calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.
Hey. I'll give you all of that.
But you need to acknowledge the fact that this is an entirely non-partisan issue and there are just as many people suffering brain damage from smart phone culture on the Left as there are on the Right.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:And yet you seem immune to the fact that far more Liberal smartphone users are incongruously dumbed down compared to the Rational Right users, while being far less able to afford it, having far less cerebral capability to begin with since they are Liberals.
Originally posted by second:Quote:You think that's bad? Smartphones may already have done permanent brain damage: We live in a world where the president routinely calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I could care less about trolls really. I'm trying to get my brother and sister in law to cut way back on their smartphone use and to stop letting my niece grow up with her own to watch videos on all the time.
It's fucking creepy on the rare occasion I go out to eat these days and I even see half the people older than me swiping away on those things like zombies instead of having conversations with each other.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.
The good news, sort of, for Democrats and other Liberals is that this nonstop dumbing down of smartphone users will help keep adolescent Liberals remaining Liberals for longer, lacking knowledge necessary to escape this disease.
I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Second.
Nobody in my immediate family, including my Mexican step-father is a Liberal. But they're all on facebook and other social media. I get to hear about all the "crazy" stuff that most of my Liberal, well-to-do extended family has to say all of the time, and I'm glad that I have no part of it. I've been trying to get my family off of that shit for a long time now.
At this point, it's only me, my dad, one of my brothers and my grandma that aren't on social media. They're the only people I can go out to dinner with and know our conversations won't be interrupted by those damned things.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nobody, not one person related to me by blood or marriage, is on Facebook. (One nephew is on www.lifecake.com which doesn't seem to be social media because it is private, for sharing pictures. He was dumb enough that everybody except him could see the divorce coming from before he married. He is setting himself up for his next divorce, right now.) Facebook is kind of a test of intelligence and self-control: the more you have of either, the less time you spend there. Or here at fireflyfans.net Firefly is over! Go Home! It is dead! (except for the zombie version in the comics)
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Second.
Nobody in my immediate family, including my Mexican step-father is a Liberal. But they're all on facebook and other social media. I get to hear about all the "crazy" stuff that most of my Liberal, well-to-do extended family has to say all of the time, and I'm glad that I have no part of it. I've been trying to get my family off of that shit for a long time now.
At this point, it's only me, my dad, one of my brothers and my grandma that aren't on social media. They're the only people I can go out to dinner with and know our conversations won't be interrupted by those damned things.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Nobody, not one person related to me by blood or marriage, is on Facebook. (One nephew is on www.lifecake.com which doesn't seem to be social media because it is private, for sharing pictures. He was dumb enough that everybody except him could see the divorce coming from before he married. He is setting himself up for his next divorce, right now.) Facebook is kind of a test of intelligence and self-control: the more you have of either, the less time you spend there. Or here at fireflyfans.net Firefly is over! Go Home! It is dead! (except for the zombie version in the comics)
I don't know if I'd say that it's a test of intelligence, but it's definitely a test of self control.
I don't mind fff.net though. It's kind of comfortable and like an old friend at this point. I guess I'll just enjoy it while it's still around. I do miss the days when there were a ton of people posting here. I just like that I can say some opinions about things and then it stays right here. People who Facebook all the time get into arguments with friends and family and don't seem to think twice about it when they get hostile and ruin those relationships. I think that's sad. Not pathetic "sad", but truly miserable. I know people who no longer talk to each other after the 2016 election that used to be really close, but something about the internet seems to erase that filter that most of us have in everyday conversation.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I'm prejudiced against a behavior that defines a category."
prej·u·dice
'prej?d?s/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
When a group of particular Asian women in fact get together to professionally persecute targeted individuals, describing them as Asian ladies who gang up on people isn't prejudice - it's a summary of observable facts.
When YOU, OTOH try to claim Signy posts 'like a bro' you're ascribing unevidenced, non-factual, PREJUDICIAL group characteristics to an individual. You are prejudiced.
I love how you brag about how good you are at Google and then totally f*ck up when it comes to honesty and actual meaning. You left out the definition that was clearly what was used:
2a(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion
Yep, I actually SAID I was prejudiced - you even included my quote in your post. Did you read your own post? You display public ignorance like you're proud of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
No worries about it making you smarter, that's for sure!
You've never used the Internet to learn anything? To improve your understanding of a subject?
It's not real surprising considering how you ignore many of the smart people on this forum instead of listening - not even Frem was able to break through your ignorance. It's something you hold on to it like it's the only thing you have control over.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
No worries about it making you smarter, that's for sure!
You've never used the Internet to learn anything? To improve your understanding of a subject?
It's not real surprising considering how you ignore many of the smart people on this forum instead of listening - not even Frem was able to break through your ignorance. It's something you hold on to it like it's the only thing you have control over.
Watch the video. Simply having that phone on you in the same room, even if it is turned off, lowers your cognitive ability. It does not make you smarter.
I use the internet from my desktop computer. If something comes along during my day I find interesting enough to learn more about, I can remember to look it up when I get home. I don't want or need a mental crutch that atrophies my mind, thank you very much. :)_
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Same here. We avoid FB like the plague.
Nobody, not one person related to me by blood or marriage, is on Facebook. - SIGNY
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DOOOOOOOOOOoooood. You can't be 'prejudiced' against an action since an action is an observable fact. You can disapprove of it. But that's not 'prejudice'.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I'm prejudiced against a behavior that defines a category."
prej·u·dice
'prej?d?s/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
When a group of particular Asian women in fact get together to professionally persecute targeted individuals, describing them as Asian ladies who gang up on people isn't prejudice - it's a summary of observable facts.
When YOU, OTOH try to claim Signy posts 'like a bro' you're ascribing unevidenced, non-factual, PREJUDICIAL group characteristics to an individual. You are prejudiced.
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
I love how you brag about how good you are at Google and then totally f*ck up when it comes to honesty and actual meaning. You left out the definition that was clearly what was used:
2a(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion
Yep, I actually SAID I was prejudiced - you even included my quote in your post. Did you read your own post? You display public ignorance like you're proud of it.
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile - let's start the betting.
Anyone want to bet on whether or not this EXTRA vetting by the FBI is going to change Kavanaugh's status?
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Brett Kavanaugh’s Lies Are Catching Up With Him
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/brett-kavanaughs-lies-per
jury-nomination-killed.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
DOOOOOOOOOOoooood. You can't be 'prejudiced' against an action since an action is an observable fact. You can disapprove of it. But that's not 'prejudice'.
Sure you can, toots - maybe not with YOUR selected definition, but with this one: a preconceived judgment or opinion about a behavior and the group that displays it?
Um, duh? Maybe it means something else in Russian?
You're just like 6 - desperate to disagree and cling to your ego no matter how observably wrong you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
John Oliver gets it as usual:
More from the aftermath:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG!!! Kavanaugh drank in high school and college!!!
Call the Washington Post!!!
****
Yanno, I'm not sure if anyone has looked back and realizes how far we've come as a society ... and not in a good way ... but so far I have heard not one single RATIONAL argument from the Dems about why Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the SC.
I'm sure there ARE good arguments against Kavanaugh, but I haven't heard them. Even NPR, which is reliably liberal, hasn't popped up with anything relevant. I know the Dems know that they don't have the votes, so in desperation, instead of a RATIONAL argument against Kavanaugh, they're now campaigning on the basis of allegation and innuendo; creating a last-minute smear campaign.
Am I the only one who thinks that we're all being prodded into an irrelevant cage-match over nothing?
I can understand Dems saying We can't vote for Kavanaugh because his history of rulings and his written opinions lead us to believe that he'll rule X, Y, and Z which are critical issues for America. Instead, we wind up with this ...
Quote:
Georgetown Prof: White GOP Senators In Kavanaugh Hearing "Deserve Miserable Deaths"
Georgetown University Distinguished Associate Professor Christine Fair tweeted that white Republican senators in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing deserve to die.
“Look at thus [sic] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement,” Fair tweeted on Thursday.
Referencing a video of "Lindsey Graham's tirade," Fair, who is a victim of sexual assault, added, “all of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps."
"Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes," she concluded the tweet.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/georgetown-prof-white-gop-se
nators-kavanaugh-hearing-deserve-miserable-deaths
Where does this get us???
What I'm seeing that somebody is promoting a war of "all against all". It's kind of scary.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do YOU see your definition in the GEEBERS? I don't. I feel sorry for you. You're so twisted, you can't even allow yourself to understand simple English anymore.
Collins
Prejudice is an unreasonable dislike of a particular group of people or things, or a preference for one group of people or things over another.
Legal dictionary
Prejudice is a baseless and typically negative attitude that an individual can hold toward someone else, or toward the members of a certain group. Prejudiced attitudes are marked by negative feelings toward someone, are often based on stereotypes, such as a belief that “all black people are unemployed criminals,” or “all Mexican people are illegal aliens and thieves.”
google
prej·u·dice
'prej?d?s/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
dictionary.com
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
such attitudes considered coll
tic tac
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You really are your own worst enemy, kickster. I think that's where all of your hostility comes from - you want to be smarter than you end up being and so you lash out. You're thinking is almost always suffocatingly linear. You leave no room for creative license ever. It must be a dark, cold and lonely world you live in.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do YOU see your definition in the GEEBERS? I don't. I feel sorry for you. You're so twisted, you can't even allow yourself to understand simple English anymore.
Have you ever heard of Merriam Webster?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
2a(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion
You can pick any definition you want and I'll pick the one that fits what I meant. I pre-judge bros, I have a preconceived opinion of their behavior - why are you still screaming into your pillow? Just to lash out because life is so unfair for you? Out of box wine again? How was your jello today?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-k
avanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.
Trying to get ahead of the story before it even came out. Slimebag.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:you pre-judge "Bros"?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
You really are your own worst enemy, kickster. I think that's where all of your hostility comes from - you want to be smarter than you end up being and so you lash out. You're thinking is almost always suffocatingly linear. You leave no room for creative license ever. It must be a dark, cold and lonely world you live in.Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do YOU see your definition in the GEEBERS? I don't. I feel sorry for you. You're so twisted, you can't even allow yourself to understand simple English anymore.
Have you ever heard of Merriam Webster?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
2a(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion
You can pick any definition you want and I'll pick the one that fits what I meant. I pre-judge bros, I have a preconceived opinion of their behavior - why are you still screaming into your pillow? Just to lash out because life is so unfair for you? Out of box wine again? How was your jello today?
Son, you haven't even demonstrated that's a valid category. Maybe you're just stereotyping men
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I keep seeing people mention how the traffic is reduced here, but I am still amazed at how many views of threads there are, even when little is being posted. Lots of lurkers seem to be about. And there is lots of FFF.net that I don't even get to. I don't really miss all the random bickering, and so mucH interesting stuff got buried between the times I used to be able to visit.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Nobody, not one person related to me by blood or marriage, is on Facebook. (One nephew is on www.lifecake.com which doesn't seem to be social media because it is private, for sharing pictures. He was dumb enough that everybody except him could see the divorce coming from before he married. He is setting himself up for his next divorce, right now.) Facebook is kind of a test of intelligence and self-control: the more you have of either, the less time you spend there. Or here at fireflyfans.net Firefly is over! Go Home! It is dead! (except for the zombie version in the comics)
I don't know if I'd say that it's a test of intelligence, but it's definitely a test of self control.
I don't mind fff.net though. It's kind of comfortable and like an old friend at this point. I guess I'll just enjoy it while it's still around. I do miss the days when there were a ton of people posting here. I just like that I can say some opinions about things and then it stays right here. People who Facebook all the time get into arguments with friends and family and don't seem to think twice about it when they get hostile and ruin those relationships. I think that's sad. Not pathetic "sad", but truly miserable. I know people who no longer talk to each other after the 2016 election that used to be really close, but something about the internet seems to erase that filter that most of us have in everyday conversation.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Some of my co-workers use the internet to try to translate meanings from other languages. They generally use google to get the wrong answer, and then expose their ignorance, not only by proclaiming that the wrong answer is right, but by also exposing how stupid they are to think Anything they get from google is accurate, correct, or real. When you find a source of information that is always wrong, and proven so, why conjure that it will suddenly be right at some point.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
It's what happens when you truly believe that your smartphone makes you smarter.
No worries about it making you smarter, that's for sure!
You've never used the Internet to learn anything? To improve your understanding of a subject?
It's not real surprising considering how you ignore many of the smart people on this forum instead of listening - not even Frem was able to break through your ignorance. It's something you hold on to it like it's the only thing you have control over.
Watch the video. Simply having that phone on you in the same room, even if it is turned off, lowers your cognitive ability. It does not make you smarter.
I use the internet from my desktop computer. If something comes along during my day I find interesting enough to learn more about, I can remember to look it up when I get home. I don't want or need a mental crutch that atrophies my mind, thank you very much. :)_
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I have learned a way to find adequate translation on algore's interwebs invention, but books are far better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Densans like you make me wonder: do you know what the Definition of "is" is?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
DOOOOOOOOOOoooood. You can't be 'prejudiced' against an action since an action is an observable fact. You can disapprove of it. But that's not 'prejudice'.
Sure you can, toots - maybe not with YOUR selected definition, but with this one: a preconceived judgment or opinion about a behavior and the group that displays it?
Um, duh? Maybe it means something else in Russian?
You're just like 6 - desperate to disagree and cling to your ego no matter how observably wrong you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is somewhat amazing how much some divisive terms change meaning after years of being relegated to the trashheap of divisiveness. I recall q time when Prejudice still meant Prejudice.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Do YOU see your definition in the GEEBERS? I don't. I feel sorry for you. You're so twisted, you can't even allow yourself to understand simple English anymore.
Collins
Prejudice is an unreasonable dislike of a particular group of people or things, or a preference for one group of people or things over another.
Legal dictionary
Prejudice is a baseless and typically negative attitude that an individual can hold toward someone else, or toward the members of a certain group. Prejudiced attitudes are marked by negative feelings toward someone, are often based on stereotypes, such as a belief that “all black people are unemployed criminals,” or “all Mexican people are illegal aliens and thieves.”
prej·u·dice
'prej?d?s/
noun
noun: prejudice; plural noun: prejudices
1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
dictionary.com
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
such attitudes considered coll
tic tac
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When did he admit this?
"I Don't Know What He Did" - Kavanaugh Accuser Backtracks On Key Assault Claims In NBC Interview
In an interview with NBC news, Swetnick said that while she saw Kavanaugh aggressively hit on women at parties, she denied that she actually witnessed him participate in the rapes. She also said Kavanaugh wasn't a member of a group of boys who assaulted her during one of these parties.
"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," Swetnick told Snow. "But, before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there, I saw Mark Judge, and they were hanging out about where I started to feel disoriented and where the room was and where the other boys were hanging out and laughing."
She added that Kavanaugh is an "admitted
Quote:MORE AT https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/i-dont-know-what-he-did-kava
blackout drunk and drug addict."
Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, one of the claims from her affidavit, she instead said that she merely "saw him around punch containers," and that she wouldn't have accepted a glass of punch if he were to hand it to her.
"I don’t know what he did," she added.
NBC was unable to corroborate Swetnick's claims after she provided four names to NBC News of people whom she said would confirm her accounts of the parties in the 1980s. After contacting all four, NBC reported that one said they did not remember Swetnick, one was dead and two did not respond.
Swetnick's interviewer, Kate Snow, noted this before the interview and added that some details of Swetnick's account differed from her sworn affidavit.
"NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims. There are things she told us on camera that differ from her written statements last week."
However, after the interview, Snow clarified that "we're not discounting what she said in any way. We're just doing our reporting...There are a lot of people working on this."
In her sworn statement, Swetnick claimed that Kavanaugh "consistently engage(d) in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women in the early 1980s."
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Kavanaugh described Swetnick's allegations as "a joke."
naugh-accuser-backtracks-claims-nbc-interview
Here is the interview
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wonder how all these incestuous despicable insidious Liberals being exposed will tilt the turnout on Election Day.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:When did he admit this?
"I Don't Know What He Did" - Kavanaugh Accuser Backtracks On Key Assault Claims In NBC Interview
In an interview with NBC news, Swetnick said that while she saw Kavanaugh aggressively hit on women at parties, she denied that she actually witnessed him participate in the rapes. She also said Kavanaugh wasn't a member of a group of boys who assaulted her during one of these parties.
"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," Swetnick told Snow. "But, before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there, I saw Mark Judge, and they were hanging out about where I started to feel disoriented and where the room was and where the other boys were hanging out and laughing."
She added that Kavanaugh is an "admittedQuote:MORE AT https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/i-dont-know-what-he-did-kava
blackout drunk and drug addict."
Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, one of the claims from her affidavit, she instead said that she merely "saw him around punch containers," and that she wouldn't have accepted a glass of punch if he were to hand it to her.
"I don’t know what he did," she added.
NBC was unable to corroborate Swetnick's claims after she provided four names to NBC News of people whom she said would confirm her accounts of the parties in the 1980s. After contacting all four, NBC reported that one said they did not remember Swetnick, one was dead and two did not respond.
Swetnick's interviewer, Kate Snow, noted this before the interview and added that some details of Swetnick's account differed from her sworn affidavit.
"NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims. There are things she told us on camera that differ from her written statements last week."
However, after the interview, Snow clarified that "we're not discounting what she said in any way. We're just doing our reporting...There are a lot of people working on this."
In her sworn statement, Swetnick claimed that Kavanaugh "consistently engage(d) in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women in the early 1980s."
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Kavanaugh described Swetnick's allegations as "a joke."
naugh-accuser-backtracks-claims-nbc-interview
Here is the interview
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
Are they trying to hide the Rape on Luna, another place he's never been?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard that Ford now stands to make a million dollars off of a GoFundMe campaign.
Does anybody know if there is any truth to this?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry - I'm not following this topic.
I know two people who were vetted by the FBI. It's pretty thorough, but not to the level of a criminal investigation. And this isn't a criminal investigation. I personally can't imagine anything being uncovered that will change the outcome of the vote, especially if the committee votes along party lines.
The only reason to pay attention is if it has a carry-over into the mid-term elections, and carry-over will have nothing to do with the specific truth or facts about this, it'll be about the passions ignited by the theatrics.
And I'm just too old and tired to do that dance - or even think about it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
I believe her stories about house parties and drunkeness and I'm 50-50 about the "lines of boys waiting to have sex with..." But mostly I haven't paid too much attention to her or Ramirez. Their stories may be very real, but in this climate and with the way the MSM works, they have just been turned in to attention fodder.
2 things that would keep me from voting for him: Kavanuagh is Trump's pick and will be a dutiful Trump robot whether R v W or protecting Trump from jail, and 2, because of his sh*tty performance in front of the judiciary and the nation. He f*cked up job interview 101 - he just doesn't have the right stuff for the Supreme. If he were an Obama pick and behaved that way he'd have a hard time getting a job at Denny's.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is dead on socio-political commentary...few see it for what it is, while others need it expalined:
It is the Rape/Silencing of Justice, mighty powerful message T.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Worth quoting
TQuote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Yup. I knew you were going to enjoy RF's torture porn.
Wow Jack, is that what you see when you look at the picture. Sick, and it explains a lot.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
I believe her stories about house parties and drunkeness and I'm 50-50 about the "lines of boys waiting to have sex with..." But mostly I haven't paid too much attention to her or Ramirez. Their stories may be very real, but in this climate and with the way the MSM works, they have just been turned in to attention fodder.
2 things that would keep me from voting for him: Kavanuagh is Trump's pick and will be a dutiful Trump robot whether R v W or protecting Trump from jail, and 2, because of his sh*tty performance in front of the judiciary and the nation. He f*cked up job interview 101 - he just doesn't have the right stuff for the Supreme. If he were an Obama pick and behaved that way he'd have a hard time getting a job at Denny's.
Sounds like somebody might be evolving.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or that it went completely over your head...."Earth to Six, come in Six"
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Again Jack thinks he is brilliant because he knew something in hindsight. In other words after it took place. Great Jack, wonderful.
T
Can't say I'm even sure what you're referring to here. Care to enlighten us?
EDIT: Oh, you mean that you enjoyed a cartoon with lady liberty being raped.
Nah. No crystal ball needed there. I'm sure nobody here is surprised that RF posted it or that you liked it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Keeks,
I agree with you, to a certain extent. I believe that it doesn't matter what the FBI find in their follow-up investigation, Kavanaugh will be "plowed"
through (the second Scumbag in charge McConnell said as much).
Despite the fact that the White House is slow-walking the parameters of this
investigation over to the FBI, it matters not. Despite the fact that
Kavanaugh perjured himself to the Senate Judicial Committee; despite the
fact that he contacted his old Yale chums to dispute the allegations against him....it don't mean shit.
The reality is that the Repugs are large and in charge; they will make sure
that he will go through. Fucking scumbags! Nothing matters to them, not the Rule of Law, not the Constitution, and least of all the people. They don't count for shit. Those raving lunatics would rather see the country go down
in flames. Money and power, that's the name of the game.
So yeah, it doesn't matter what's uncovered. Whether he assaulted that woman or not, is of no importance to the Repugs, Trump and McConnell will see to it.
Reality is a bitch, so is Karma.
sgg
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Sorry - I'm not following this topic.
I know two people who were vetted by the FBI. It's pretty thorough, but not to the level of a criminal investigation. And this isn't a criminal investigation. I personally can't imagine anything being uncovered that will change the outcome of the vote, especially if the committee votes along party lines.
The only reason to pay attention is if it has a carry-over into the mid-term elections, and carry-over will have nothing to do with the specific truth or facts about this, it'll be about the passions ignited by the theatrics.
And I'm just too old and tired to do that dance - or even think about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh GUY, one could hardly NOT see the "message" in the cartoon, it kind of bludgeons people over the head, yanno?
This is dead on socio-political commentary...few see it for what it is, while others need it expalined: It is the Rape/Silencing of Justice, mighty powerful message T.- GUY
But I see different messages in there ... unintentional ones, but there nonetheless
1) An orchestrated effort to rile people up, and
2) GUILTY!!!
(until proven innocent)
Both subliminal messages are dangerous. I hope you see that.
******
Once upon a time, I had a personality test done at work; it was for us to understand our personalities and approaches in the hope that we would work better together, and one aspect of my personality is that I like to consider ALL possibilities before making a decision. I think that is why I'm one of the people here saying ... Don't rush to judgment ... which it seems MOST people are intent on doing. But IMHO as long as there are equally-possible scenarios which explain events and EVIDENCE doesn't definitively point us in one direction or another then we should withhold judgment until better information comes along. For example there are women who said that Kavanaugh did (or may have) sexually assaulted them, but there are people who were there - pointed out as witnesses or friends by the self-proclaimed victims - who said HUH?? I don't even know you or I don't remember any such thing.
How to account for these accusations - and lack of corroboration?
Well, it DOES seem that there was a lot of drinking going on. That's one thing that people agree on. So it's very possible that these things happened, but unless they happened TO YOU, nobody would notice or remember out of sheer drunkneness. Possibly these events happened but the witnesses were also complicit, or don't want to get tainted/involved, and are backing away from the story.
It's also possible that the victims simply mis-remember; even THEIR memories are fragmentary, and piecing together fragile impressions warps them in some way (See FALSE MEMORY) especially if you combine it with a ideological motivation to put someone's face in the picture as the attacker. Or maybe the self-proclaimed victims are looking to make money or are attention-seeking.
At this point ... especially with the denials/lack of corroboration of the potential witnesses who were supposedly involved ... the evidence is equivocal.
There's ONE thing that I wouldn't rely on, however... people who "talked about" an event but who didn't witness it PERSONALLY. Unless YOU WERE THERE or there was a POLICE REPORT filed, hearsay shouldn't count.
I know how stories can run like wildfire and get completely overblown in the process; seen it happen at work and the inet only makes it worse.
In fact, I have a funny story about that. Maybe later.
******
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those comments led to more than $200,000 in donations to the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign, which the New York Times noted Thursday is “more money than it had gained in the past eight days.”
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've heard that Ford now stands to make a million dollars off of a GoFundMe campaign.
Does anybody know if there is any truth to this?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
The campaign is no longer accepting donations, having raised $473,622 of its initial $150,000 goal with donations from 10,370 people in nine days.
“New donations will go towards security and other expenses determined by the [Ford] family,” explained the campaign organizer, who says they set up the campaign on behalf of the Fords. “We will close the campaign when we have raised enough to cover these expenses. Thank you again for your support.”
A second campaign, “Cover Dr. Blasey’s security costs,” raised $209,987 of its $175,000 goal with donations from 6,658 people in nine days.
“Due to death threats, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (who uses “Dr. Blasey” professionally) and her family have had to leave their residence and arrange for private security,” wrote the campaign organizer. “Let’s create a fund to cover her security expenses, to do just a bit to make it easier for women in her position to come forward despite great risks. If we raise more than Dr. Blasey needs, extra funds will go to women’s organizations and/or into an account to cover similar costs incurred in comparable situations.”
https://people.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-mention-tho
usands-donations/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
I believe her stories about house parties and drunkeness and I'm 50-50 about the "lines of boys waiting to have sex with..." But mostly I haven't paid too much attention to her or Ramirez. Their stories may be very real, but in this climate and with the way the MSM works, they have just been turned in to attention fodder.
2 things that would keep me from voting for him: Kavanuagh is Trump's pick and will be a dutiful Trump robot whether R v W or protecting Trump from jail, and 2, because of his sh*tty performance in front of the judiciary and the nation. He f*cked up job interview 101 - he just doesn't have the right stuff for the Supreme. If he were an Obama pick and behaved that way he'd have a hard time getting a job at Denny's.
Sounds like somebody might be evolving.
Sounds more like you're starting to wake up - congratulations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The comments ... NOBODY believes this woman.
I believe her stories about house parties and drunkeness and I'm 50-50 about the "lines of boys waiting to have sex with..." But mostly I haven't paid too much attention to her or Ramirez. Their stories may be very real, but in this climate and with the way the MSM works, they have just been turned in to attention fodder.
2 things that would keep me from voting for him: Kavanuagh is Trump's pick and will be a dutiful Trump robot whether R v W or protecting Trump from jail, and 2, because of his sh*tty performance in front of the judiciary and the nation. He f*cked up job interview 101 - he just doesn't have the right stuff for the Supreme. If he were an Obama pick and behaved that way he'd have a hard time getting a job at Denny's.
Sounds like somebody might be evolving.
Sounds more like you're starting to wake up - congratulations.
I should be saying congratulations to you. Of the 5 regulars of this thread on the left, you're the second one to come at Kavanaugh with legitimate beef instead of moral panic. I'm actually kind of surprised that SGG hasn't abandoned that before you did.
I'm a little surprised at the fact that Second never seemed to buy into it all that much himself. That might not be because he never believed the stories, but he realized that this is a tactic that is not going to work for the Democrats and is going to likely end up doing more harm for them than good.
There's word that there will be an investigation into how this was handled, and how the information was leaked. I'd be more than a little worried about that if I was Feinstein. Unlike a 30+ year old rape investigation that has no corroborating witnesses, this would have happened only a few months back and there will be plenty of electronic evidence of it taking place if it did.
I'm glad Ford is going to get 3/4 of a million dollars at this point. Her family shouldn't have to pay for any security costs either. The Dems in power shamelessly used her and put her in that position. If the investigation shows wrong doing, those involved should be removed from their positions immediately, and the Ford's security costs should be paid for out of their pensions.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
John Oliver gets it as usual:
More from the aftermath:
Nailed it!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, they didn't. It was her choice. She knew what would happen, and it did.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The Dems in power shamelessly used her and put her in that position.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:Quote:No, they didn't. It was her choice. She knew what would happen, and it did.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The Dems in power shamelessly used her and put her in that position.
That's not the story that they're saying now. We'll see.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who's "they?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, she DIDN'T know that her letter would be leaked so she DIDN'T know what would happen. SOMEbody shamelessly used her.
The Dems in power shamelessly used her and put her in that position. - SIX
No, they didn't. It was her choice. She knew what would happen, and it did. - SHIT
She gave her story to Rep. Anna Eshoo, who passed it on to Feinstein. Her lawyers also had a copy. SHE requested anonymity, but somebody leaked the letter.
Given that the letter was in possession of only a few people, the choices as to who that was are LIMITED: It was either someone in Feinstein's office, someone in Eshoo's office (both Democrats btw), someone in her lawyer's office, or Ford herself. These particular facts are inescapable.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Simple, politics aside, attempted rape aside, Kavanaugh neither represents someone who tells the truth or has the temperament to warrant a seat on the Supreme Court. How many times he lied I can't say but it's a lot.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME