Democratic leader DO NOT believe the accusers when the accused is a Democrat: HERE

#MeToo started with noble intentions but it has been politicized primarily by the Left to smear opponents.

(September 20, 2018 at 9:17 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: So should Ted Kennedy have been removed from Office?

The Republicans used a technical procedural move to (wrongly) deny Garland possible confirmation. Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations, i.e. Bork, Thomas, and now Kavannauh. It's disgusting.

You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander? I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. Or maybe that's just you.

(September 20, 2018 at 10:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 20, 2018 at 9:17 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: So should Ted Kennedy have been removed from Office?

The Republicans used a technical procedural move to (wrongly) deny Garland possible confirmation. Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations, i.e. Bork, Thomas, and now Kavannauh. It's disgusting.

You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander?  I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Or maybe that's just you.

I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not. I don't automatically assume that people are innocent or guilty particularly when there are potential political motivations on both sides to fudge and exaggerate reported events. And I would think you would be the very first to admit the fallibility of human memory. That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.

Here is the report transcript by NPR: NPR

So here we have 3 things: 1) Hill's own testimony, 2) confirmation to NPR by an anonymous source, and 3) the FBI report stating that there were no contradictions in Hill's testimony.

The question is whether the last two support Hill's testimony, (1). (2) appears to do so but the source is not identified so that doesn't really count. (3) doesn't really count as supporting either. Just because there is no evidence that something isn't true doesn't mean that it is actually true.

For me, I just love love love it when the republicans have to deal with a bimbo eruption of their own.


GO TEAM !!!

(September 19, 2018 at 11:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(September 19, 2018 at 9:57 pm)Lek Wrote: As of now Ms Ford doesn't want to discuss her allegations against Mr Kavanaugh either publicly or privately with congress.  If she wants to make an accusation that will potentially destroy his career and possibly his life during this public process, then she should state her allegations for the public record.  This is a matter that most definitely should have been presented during the hearings and not at the last second after their closing.  We're in danger of setting a precedent for allowing unfounded last minute allegations to be brought forth just for the purpose of delaying or derailing a vote.  This stinks of being a purely political maneuver with no concern for the accused or the accuser.

It's nice to hear that you believe your own propaganda.  The rest of us are interested in something else, like the truth.

As always these days, every Republican is on one side of the issue and every Democrat is on the other side.  Could it be that in reality someone actually has an opinion of their own that is different than the party line? There's no search for the truth.  Paula Jones and Anita Broderick were quickly shoved aside by the Democrats during Clinton's term.  Should they have had their investigations?  It all depends on who's side you're on.

The latest on Kavanaugh, he only wants models working for him (the women that is).

I wonder how many of the women unfortunate to have clerked for him were raped?

Hey Lek, for somebody who loves spouting off how respectful you are towards women, you sure do love defending rapists don't you, first Dumbfuck now Kavanaugh. You were probably fluffing for Moore too.

Quote:Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations, i.e. Bork, Thomas, and now Kavannauh. It's disgusting.

This sentence is the only slander here 

---

Quote:The Republicans used a technical procedural move to (wrongly) deny Garland possible confirmation.

The Republican cheated to deny a person who would have won so they could shove a political appointee in .

(September 20, 2018 at 2:29 pm)Wololo Wrote: The latest on Kavanaugh, he only wants models working for him (the women that is).

I wonder how many of the women unfortunate to have clerked for him were raped?

Hey Lek, for somebody who loves spouting off how respectful you are towards women, you sure do love defending rapists don't you, first Dumbfuck now Kavanaugh.  You were probably fluffing for Moore too.

You have serious issues. 

(September 20, 2018 at 6:45 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(September 20, 2018 at 2:29 pm)Wololo Wrote: The latest on Kavanaugh, he only wants models working for him (the women that is).

I wonder how many of the women unfortunate to have clerked for him were raped?

Hey Lek, for somebody who loves spouting off how respectful you are towards women, you sure do love defending rapists don't you, first Dumbfuck now Kavanaugh.  You were probably fluffing for Moore too.

You have serious issues. 

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018...nr-vpx.cnn

This one is nice looking, but I wouldn’t say model like. Maybe they mean poised and confident? I can see where that would be good for lawyers.

---

Perhaps they where suggesting that they wear something like this.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/e3/bc/9f/e3bc9...-humor.jpg

(September 20, 2018 at 11:41 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 20, 2018 at 10:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander?  I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Or maybe that's just you.

I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not. I don't automatically assume that people are innocent or guilty particularly when there are potential political motivations on both sides to fudge and exaggerate reported events. And I would think you would be the very first to admit the fallibility of human memory. That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.

Here is the report transcript by NPR: NPR

So here we have 3 things: 1) Hill's own testimony, 2) confirmation to NPR by an anonymous source, and 3) the FBI report stating that there were no contradictions in Hill's testimony.

The question is whether the last two support Hill's testimony, (1). (2) appears to do so but the source is not identified so that doesn't really count. (3) doesn't really count as supporting either. Just because there is no evidence that something isn't true doesn't mean that it is actually true.

I haven't read the NPR article you quote, other than to note that it says the Anita Hill accusations against Thomas were brought to the committee a month before Republicans, who, at the last minute, decided to investigate them. A key difference between that and the Blasey Ford allegations. If I missed something in your article, I apologize in advance, but I'm busy and felt this deserved a response even though I am somewhat unprepared.

My first reaction is utter disgust. This past week, Don Jr. tweeted a derisive satire of Blasey Ford's letter, apparently designed to undermine her. Then today, Don Jr. has seen fit to retweet a post about corroborating evidence that Democratic AG candidate Keith Ellison abused a former partner. In that I see much the same story I see in every aspect of the Republican response, both to Ms. Hill's allegations and to Christine Blasey Ford and her allegations, and that is a rather obvious intention to set aside concerns for the truth and interest in handling the allegations appropriately in the favor of pursuing narrowly defined self interest. Your latest volley falls right squarely under that heading. Lacking any actual knowledge about Ms. Hill's allegations, or those of Ms. Blasey Ford, you chose to attack the victim and accuse both of "unfounded slander." Having looked at the Oxford English Dictionary this afternoon, I have been made aware that the only definitions of slander without an allegation of falsehood are obsolete or historical. But you eliminated all doubt by including the claim that Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford's accusations were unfounded, implying they were false. Your obvious intent was nothing but a propagandistic undermining of the credibility of both Ms. Hill and Ms. Blasey Ford. And despite some moderation of your tone now, that remains your basic attitude. Obviously, these allegations mean nothing to you if they interfere with your narrowly defined self interest. And you wonder why my impression of you is that you are a person lacking in character, morals, and integrity?

Perhaps I will find something to ameliorate my concern in your NPR article, but for the moment, disgust appears to be the mood of the day.