Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Joods]

Not the same thing as an actual testimony, dumb ass. 

You're supposed to be fixing split ends, not splitting more hairs, loser.

I'll reserve my judgement for afterwards.

Be honest for once and admit you'll still condemn Kavanaugh no matter what.

Fuck off asshole. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. If that time comes and he's cleared of any wrong doing by way of clear cut evidence, then I'll be woman enough to say I was incorrect. 

You however, will tuck tail and still find a way to blame the victim regardless.

[RoadRunner79]

And you have the testimony from a number of others, that say they have no recollection of this party.  The testimony from Kavenaugh and Judge, that this did not occur.   And the testimony of her good friend, who was supposedly there (as well as a number of other parties with Ford), but denies having ever known Judge and Kavenaugh or remembering the party described.  There is zero corroborating evidence.  It seems that this is based on more emotion and I see people pointing to the ends, rather than the means.  I'm starting to suspect that this is the case in a number of arguments here (hence the inconsistencies I see in many)  It's less about reason and evidence, and more about emotion and the desired result.

I was being glib.

I know.

---

So you don't need evidence and reasons for you belief then?

Does that standard only apply to a criminal case?

edit:   This seems like a principle that may bite you in the ass later (on an atheists forum).

I'm telling you right now - if you are even considering adopting diaperboy's tactics of quote mining, I will make sure that everyone on this forum knows to block your stupid ass. It's bad enough we have one pathetic member who does that shit with the express intent to hurt others. We don't need another.

So; do you think I took your quote out of context. If so, then I’m curious what you meant by say multiple times, that this is not a criminal case, if I misunderstood.

[Amarok]

You're supposed to be fixing split ends, not splitting more hairs, loser.


Be honest for once and admit you'll still condemn Kavanaugh no matter what.

Fuck off asshole. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. If that time comes and he's cleared of any wrong doing by way of clear cut evidence, then I'll be woman enough to say I was incorrect. 

You however, will tuck tail and still find a way to blame the victim regardless.

This is the ultimate burn to a guy who is so insecure he needs to advertise his sex in his user and then make it seem impressive by pushing some MRA nonsense about being "Apha"

[robvalue]

When I first saw the title, I genuinely thought this was about the new ethically diverse Thomas the Tank Engine

[Amarok]

When I first saw the title, I genuinely thought this was about the new ethically diverse Thomas the Tank Engine

Disappointing huh

[DodosAreDead]

I was talking about this whole issue with my father a little while ago. He seems to think that even if these accusations turned out to be true, Kavanaugh shouldn't be blocked from being nominated for something he did yeahs ago in high school and college when 'everyone is young and wild'. Now, to be fair, my dad doesn't condone sexual assault at all, but seems to think that since so many years have passed this is beyond the statute of limitations or whatever. Idk... I dislike this argument lol. If he is proven to have sexually assaulted people back then, he should still face the legal repercussions now. 

Personally I think it's highly fishy that this has all come out just as he was nominated. I'm not surprised at the time that has passed between assault and accusation, the whole 'we were ashamed to come forward' argument makes sense, and it could happen. But if the three women were ashamed to come forward, why did they manage to shake it off now? Just as he was nominated? I feel like I definitely believe them, but as a left leaning female I'm biased. 


(PS I'm all over the place with this post, I really shouldn't write posts just as I'm about to go to class lol)

[Joods]

@DOD - this didn't just come out. Dr. Ford told her therapist and her husband years ago.

[John V]

Fuck off asshole. Unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. If that time comes and he's cleared of any wrong doing by way of clear cut evidence, then I'll be woman enough to say I was incorrect. 

I don't know if you're too stupid to realize it, or are being purposely disingenuous, but it's nearly impossible for him to be cleared by clear cut evidence when his accuser can't even say when or where it allegedly took place.

You however, will tuck tail and still find a way to blame the victim regardless.

No, if for instance Judge changes his story and says it happened, I'll accept that.

[Angrboda]

The American Civil Liberties Union announced that it is against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, a rarity in the organization’s century-long practice of not endorsing or opposing judicial candidates.

The ACLU said in a statement Saturday that Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh, the subsequent allegations from other women, the “inadequate investigation” into these claims and the judge’s own testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday are all reasons to doubt his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

“This is not a decision taken lightly,” according to a resolution the organization’s national board of directors passed. “We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee.”

(Washington Post)

[Mermaid]

"The most remarkable number in the Marist poll: A 54 percent majority of Republicans said Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true."

(Washington Post)

I don't want this to be true.