I'm a Democrat, The Deborah Ramirez story sounds fishy

[JoeB131]

I don't do background checks, the FBI does, and they did 6 on him.

The FBI did dozens on Robert Hansen, who was passing secrets to the Russians.

 

[JoeB131]

I never said that Bill Clinton raped Monica Lewinsky, but he is clearly guilty of sexual harassment. Oh and he lied about it, under oath.

Monica was a consenting adult. Two consenting adults having sex is not harassment.

There is no proof that Kavanugh lied here. Allegations are not proof.

And if we were talking about throwing him in jail, I'd agree with you. But giving him a lifetime appointment where he'll be making decisions on women's rights... not so fast.

In addition, unlike with Bill Clinton, there is no subsequent behavior that suggests the allegations are likely to be true.

You mean other than the other two credible allegations that have come up, or that everyone who knew him in college said he was a lout, or the meltdown he had in front of the Senate.

Jesus Christ, if he's like that when he's sober in his 50's, he must have been a terror when drunk in his teens.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So....no evidence shows that she told the truth, but now you want evidence that she lied....go figure.

`
Truth is a subjective concept, something that can be accepted or rejected acording to a persons prejudices. Some people think everything trump says is true, for example. Others believe everything the bible says is true. In both cases, there are those who don't believe it's true. I prefer facts to truth. Thanks for asking.

You claim to prefer facts to truth, but don't seem to understand the difference between allegations and facts.

That you prefer facts to truth, suggests you don't understand the concept of truth.

/——/ I don’t understand. Facts are truth. Is that what you meant to say?

 

[JoeB131]

Postmodernist thinkers like Joe don't need facts, evidence or Truth.

Their opinions formed through the lens of their own experiences represent their own personal "truth" and that's all they need to feel justified in their lazy and self centered perspective.

Boy, you're new here, and like a lot of rookies, you won't last long... but you need to learn to not poke the bull.

 

[JoeB131]

If you were present when someone murdered her, do you think you could remember the time and place it happened?

sure... what I wouldn't necessarily remember is who was in the room...

Sorry, man, you guys are grasping at straws on this one. You have a credible woman calmly making a credible accusation, vs. a crazy guy yelling, "Hillary is out to get me!!!"

 

[hadit]

I don't do background checks, the FBI does, and they did 6 on him.

The FBI did dozens on Robert Hansen, who was passing secrets to the Russians.

So what makes you think another FBI investigation into Kavanaugh will find anything more? Were you not demanding one?

 

[hadit]

If you were present when someone murdered her, do you think you could remember the time and place it happened?

sure... what I wouldn't necessarily remember is who was in the room...

Sorry, man, you guys are grasping at straws on this one. You have a credible woman calmly making a credible accusation, vs. a crazy guy yelling, "Hillary is out to get me!!!"

You wouldn't have observed the murder and left the scene, telling no one and letting a dangerous person walk free.

Credible, accept she can't remember where it happened so investigators could visit the house and talk to the people who owned it at the time, can't remember how she got to the party or home, so investigators could interview the person who drove her, can't remember when it happened so investigators could verify the accused's whereabouts, the people she said were at the party don't say they were, and on it goes. You're gauging credibility solely on your bias against the accused and not on the strength of the allegation. That's weak.

My prediction is the investigation won't turn up any evidence and all of a sudden what the usual suspects were demanding so vociferously will be deemed insignificant.

 

[Pop23]

Postmodernist thinkers like Joe don't need facts, evidence or Truth.

Their opinions formed through the lens of their own experiences represent their own personal "truth" and that's all they need to feel justified in their lazy and self centered perspective.

Boy, you're new here, and like a lot of rookies, you won't last long... but you need to learn to not poke the bull.

He should poke a bull before you warn him of doing such.

 

[Pop23]

If you were present when someone murdered her, do you think you could remember the time and place it happened?

sure... what I wouldn't necessarily remember is who was in the room...

Sorry, man, you guys are grasping at straws on this one. You have a credible woman calmly making a credible accusation, vs. a crazy guy yelling, "Hillary is out to get me!!!"

You wouldn't? No doubt I would.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, Joe, yes Joe, a rape survivor, except she was never raped. By her own admission, even if her claims are 100% true, she was felt up through two layers of clothing at a party she knew she didn't belong at, didn't want to admit to her parents she went to, but went to anyway looking for a wild time.

And worried about what? Being trapped in her home 3.6 decades later, on her 2nd floor sleeping in a locked house with her husband? That had prescience 6 years in advance that some day a guy who she barely knew as a kid might someday become a Supreme Court Justice? Does this sound like a normal credible person to you? One whom we can take at her word that somehow otherwise seems to have managed an advanced career and life? Who was afraid to fly to the hearing to meet a deadline yet has spent her life flying all over the world? Over an event no one in the world seems to remember but her?

I love the Right Wing Flop Sweat over this one.

We send young black men to jail all the time over less evidence than we have on Kavanaugh right now.

I'm sure Kavanaugh himself has sent people to prison on less evidence.

Bullshit. We do no such thing.

View attachment 219283 View attachment 219284

Frankly, I'm having a hard time believing Ford is several years younger than Kavanaugh? An even harder time believing he was ever interested in her? She looks for all the world like a pathetic, desperate, jealous, grasping woman very much in need of attention, envious that her secret love interest Brett made it and she didn't.

One assumes she looked rather different at 15. But I have to agree that it looks like life was a lot kinder to him than to her.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think and say whatever you want. Bottom line is these other cases do not apply, they are all different circumstances, and if you think they were injust, blame THOSE juries. They prove nothing nor have any bearing of Kavanaugh's suitability to serve on the Supreme Court. Your argument is like saying that just because it rained in Washington state 5 times last week, we are owed at least one rain in Atacama. As usual, you say stupid shit then go a mile wide off topic on a tangent trying to change the subject to prove it.

Not at all.

I'm saying we send guys to prison all the time on the say of a woman.

Whether or not we should or not is another question. That's why we have investigations and judges and juries.

So what I saw was a survivor calmly describing an attack, and a person screaming about how Hillary is out to get him!!!!!

No one goes to prison solely on the say-so of a single woman, liar.

I think you're asking for far too much rationality and awareness of the real world, considering the source.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one goes to prison solely on the say-so of a single woman, liar.

Really?

You need to look up a guy named "Gary Dotson", who spent 10 years in an Illinois Prison on the say so of Kathleen Crowell.

Gary Dotson - Wikipedia

Even after Crowell recanted her accusation, the State of Illinois didn't want to release the guy.

Gary Dotson - Wikipedia

When it happens, every rational person views it as a miscarriage of justice.

Dotson was exonerated by DNA evidence.

Keep in mind that douchebags like you claim the Central Park Five were innocent, and there was far more evidence against them than the Dims have against Kavanaugh, which is none.

Yes, like their own confessions.

 

[JoeB131]

So what makes you think another FBI investigation into Kavanaugh will find anything more? Were you not demanding one?

Oh, really don't think it will. I think we already know all we need to know about Judge Gropey.

Another week, for people to realize that you really, really don't want an angry drunk on SCOTUS. Enough for Collins, Murkowski and Flake to get the message that this is a bad idea.

You wouldn't have observed the murder and left the scene, telling no one and letting a dangerous person walk free.

This wasn't a murder, and we are talking about a culture where privileged white boys get away with this sort of shit.

In the 1980's, they wouldn't have said, "you poor dear", they would have said, "You little slut".

Heck, even today, half of rapes don't get reported, and only 3% of rapists go to jail.

My prediction is the investigation won't turn up any evidence and all of a sudden what the usual suspects were demanding so vociferously will be deemed insignificant.

Well, it will be meaningless because you've given it less than a week.

But by the end of the week, nobody is really going to want to tell Rape Survivors to Drop Dead, so everyone will realize putting an angry drunk on SCOTUS is a bad idea.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you're asking for far too much rationality and awareness of the real world, considering the source.

Except I've cited cases where men have gone to prison on the say-so of a single witness.

yes, rationality and awareness is realizing THIS SHIT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

 

[hadit]

So what makes you think another FBI investigation into Kavanaugh will find anything more? Were you not demanding one?

Oh, really don't think it will. I think we already know all we need to know about Judge Gropey.

Another week, for people to realize that you really, really don't want an angry drunk on SCOTUS. Enough for Collins, Murkowski and Flake to get the message that this is a bad idea.

You wouldn't have observed the murder and left the scene, telling no one and letting a dangerous person walk free.

This wasn't a murder, and we are talking about a culture where privileged white boys get away with this sort of shit.

In the 1980's, they wouldn't have said, "you poor dear", they would have said, "You little slut".

Heck, even today, half of rapes don't get reported, and only 3% of rapists go to jail.

My prediction is the investigation won't turn up any evidence and all of a sudden what the usual suspects were demanding so vociferously will be deemed insignificant.

Well, it will be meaningless because you've given it less than a week.

But by the end of the week, nobody is really going to want to tell Rape Survivors to Drop Dead, so everyone will realize putting an angry drunk on SCOTUS is a bad idea.

I thought we were told we just needed three days for the professionals at the FBI to look into it. I guess that was before it really started falling apart. You demanded it, you got it, and now you're deciding you don't want it.

I see the new narrative is taking hold. Since the sexual assault accusation is falling apart (your mistake was immediately screaming rape, even though he wasn't accused of it), now you want to focus on drinking. Any evidence that Kav is in fact today a drunk? I mean, besides random internet keyboard jockeys mindlessly repeating it.

 

[hadit]

I think you're asking for far too much rationality and awareness of the real world, considering the source.

Except I've cited cases where men have gone to prison on the say-so of a single witness.

yes, rationality and awareness is realizing THIS SHIT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

Since it shouldn't happen, we also shouldn't destroy a man's life on an impossible to prove single allegation.

 

[skookerasbil]

The hyper-Dums continue to think the FBI is going to be out there doing the CSI thing.....duh....the committee has to deliberate as to whether or not blacking out gives the accuser any credibility! Doy

 

[2aguy]

From what I read, her lawyer asked her to remember stuff. She didn't remember anything bad, but after 6 days she remembered be put his dick next to her face.

There is no research showing memory loss in raped women, let alone dick flashing incidents.

These types of events are salient and non-forgettable. If a woman flashed her pussy to me and I felt violated, I'd be able to recall it right away 30 years later.

The problem is that we are making it easy for any Republican woman to pretend a Democrat flashed or raped or harassed her in the distant past.

This also has implications regarding ordinary citizens. When a woman doesn't like you she will just accuse you of flashing her or raping her.

And now, the 2 door story is falling apart....remember when she said the trauma was so deep that she needed 2 front doors on her home....and the fight with her husband about it sent them to counseling, where she then talked about the attack?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_three_lies_of_christine_blasey_ford.html

(As is true of just about everything else in this story, the reasoning behind the second door remains a mystery. Evidently, its purpose was to allow Blasey Ford a means of escape if Kavanaugh landed his Harrier in front of her home and attempted to once again lay hands on her. The fact that a back or side door would serve this purpose much better has never, to my knowledge, entered the discussion.)

Well, Christine got her door. But she didn’t get in 2012, and no marriage counselor was involved. It happens that the permit for remodeling her home – including adding the door -- was obtained in 2008.

If Palo Alto is like other municipalities, the permit would be good for six months, with an option for a six-month extension. So the door must have been added at that time. And in fact, photographic evidence exists showing the new door in place in 2011, a year before Blasey Ford claims that it nearly destroyed her marriage.

Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the house in question was rented out by Blasey Ford to “Google interns” and that no one in her family lived there. In addition, somebody was running a business there (a “couples therapy” clinic, ironically enough – the “Couples Research Center.” There’s that word “research” again.), and that the door was added as an entrance to the business, rather than as a Kavanaugh-evasion device.

While these claims might appear minor in isolation, together they form a pattern recognizable and undeniable. There will no doubt be others coming, but three is all we need, according to the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I read, her lawyer asked her to remember stuff. She didn't remember anything bad, but after 6 days she remembered be put his dick next to her face.

There is no research showing memory loss in raped women, let alone dick flashing incidents.

These types of events are salient and non-forgettable. If a woman flashed her pussy to me and I felt violated, I'd be able to recall it right away 30 years later.

The problem is that we are making it easy for any Republican woman to pretend a Democrat flashed or raped or harassed her in the distant past.

This also has implications regarding ordinary citizens. When a woman doesn't like you she will just accuse you of flashing her or raping her.

And now, the 2 door story is falling apart....remember when she said the trauma was so deep that she needed 2 front doors on her home....and the fight with her husband about it sent them to counseling, where she then talked about the attack?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_three_lies_of_christine_blasey_ford.html

(As is true of just about everything else in this story, the reasoning behind the second door remains a mystery. Evidently, its purpose was to allow Blasey Ford a means of escape if Kavanaugh landed his Harrier in front of her home and attempted to once again lay hands on her. The fact that a back or side door would serve this purpose much better has never, to my knowledge, entered the discussion.)

Well, Christine got her door. But she didn’t get in 2012, and no marriage counselor was involved. It happens that the permit for remodeling her home – including adding the door -- was obtained in 2008.

If Palo Alto is like other municipalities, the permit would be good for six months, with an option for a six-month extension. So the door must have been added at that time. And in fact, photographic evidence exists showing the new door in place in 2011, a year before Blasey Ford claims that it nearly destroyed her marriage.

Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the house in question was rented out by Blasey Ford to “Google interns” and that no one in her family lived there. In addition, somebody was running a business there (a “couples therapy” clinic, ironically enough – the “Couples Research Center.” There’s that word “research” again.), and that the door was added as an entrance to the business, rather than as a Kavanaugh-evasion device.

While these claims might appear minor in isolation, together they form a pattern recognizable and undeniable. There will no doubt be others coming, but three is all we need, according to the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

Like I've been saying all along, the extent and nature of the "traumatic effects" she's described do not even remotely match the story she told. I exhibit no surprise at being proved correct.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought we were told we just needed three days for the professionals at the FBI to look into it. I guess that was before it really started falling apart. You demanded it, you got it, and now you're deciding you don't want it.

Nobody said just three days.

You guys want to limit it because if you do it right, you'll probably find out a lot of stuff about the angry drunk you want to put on the court.

Like that arrest he had in New Haven for a bar fight.

I see the new narrative is taking hold. Since the sexual assault accusation is falling apart (your mistake was immediately screaming rape, even though he wasn't accused of it), now you want to focus on drinking. Any evidence that Kav is in fact today a drunk? I mean, besides random internet keyboard jockeys mindlessly repeating it.

Nobody said it was falling apart, but the fact he pretty much admitted to being an angry drunk is disqualifying in and of itself... and we can prove that without an investigation.

And now, the 2 door story is falling apart....remember when she said the trauma was so deep that she needed 2 front doors on her home....and the fight with her husband about it sent them to counseling, where she then talked about the attack?

Trivial and unimportant. You really should stick to reporting the one gun crime in Britain while ignoring the hundreds that happen here.