Kavanaugh-Ford: The Mental Health Explanation

[PoliticalChic]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

 

[bullwinkle]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

Your demonizing abilities are in good working order today, Ms/Mr Chic, but still below that of your hero.

 

[caddo kid]

LOL, another Kavanaugh thread. haha

 

[midcan5]

Having served on several juries you often see behaviors similar to Kavanaugh's aggrieved facial gestures, it is never them, the mind seeks excuses. It rants emtionally as it must convince itself too. But in the end republicans only care about a base that wants a court that does their wishes - and they vote. Kavanaugh should he make it to the scotus will hurt the very working class who support republicans. Interesting piece below for those who seek the truth.

Did Christine Blasey Ford's account sound real? Here's what experts who study sexual violence have to say - Los Angeles Times

"Despotism has so often been established in the name of liberty that experience should warn us to judge parties by their practices rather than their preachings." Raymond Aron

 

[DGS49]

The nauseating part of the current gotcha/#MeToo climate is the women are permitted by the Cultural Arbitrators to be - at the same time - (1) helpless victims who couldn't have possibly done anything in their own defense, or spoken up at any time during the past 35 years, and (2) STRONG, accomplished, powerful women!

Are we to see this woman as an accomplished professional, admired by her peers, author of 65 published, peer-reviewed papers, or a meek, timid, private, sad little woman who really didn't want to publicly SABOTAGE THE NOMINATION OF ONE OF THE MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS EVER NOMINATED FOR THE COURT?

Hmm.

Only in the Leftist delusional universe can you have it both ways.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

Your demonizing abilities are in good working order today, Ms/Mr Chic, but still below that of your hero.

Who's the hero?

It's a lady obviously.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5.Those two factors… the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane….considered, Dr. Ford could still simply be one more ‘useful idiot,’ a willing pawn in the Democrat/Liberals passion play.

After all, the well-known fact is that, for Liberals, feeling passes for knowing…..and her testimony was all feeling and no knowing.





But, one would have to expect Ford to be uneasy judging by how little Ford and the Democrats could point to as proof of her claims.



Fact is…..she had no facts, and the evidence weighed against her.

“Witness named by Kavanaugh accuser becomes third to deny being at party

A witness, reportedly named by Christine Blasey Ford as one of the people at the high school party where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday she was not there.

The attorney for Leland Ingham Keyser told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Keyser does not remember being at the party Ford described as the location of the alleged assault.

"Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," Keyser said in the statement. CNN reported Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's.” Witness named by Kavanaugh accuser becomes third to deny being at party





Her friend…and ‘witness’…..not there, never met Kavanaugh….

What sort of individual would expose herself to the world as having such a refutable argument?
Not a well person.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Having served on several juries you often see behaviors similar to Kavanaugh's aggrieved facial gestures, it is never them, the mind seeks excuses. It rants emtionally as it must convince itself too. But in the end republicans only care about a base that wants a court that does their wishes - and they vote. Kavanaugh should he make it to the scotus will hurt the very working class who support republicans. Interesting piece below for those who seek the truth.

Did Christine Blasey Ford's account sound real? Here's what experts who study sexual violence have to say - Los Angeles Times

"Despotism has so often been established in the name of liberty that experience should warn us to judge parties by their practices rather than their preachings." Raymond Aron

Any evidence, substantiation, or corroboration?

No?

Exactly.



That's the way Liberals function.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.






Did you note the forum in which I posted this?


Glad I could help.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.




Glad I could help.

But I don't see a difference, doc. It's shit on this side and shit on that side - tell me which is going to kill me?

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL, another Kavanaugh thread. haha

Isn't it dangerous to use one's entire vocabulary in a single post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.




Glad I could help.

But I don't see a difference, doc. It's shit on this side and shit on that side - tell me which is going to kill me?

Your vulgarity is the give-away.....

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at seeing your worldview punctured leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[bullwinkle]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

Your demonizing abilities are in good working order today, Ms/Mr Chic, but still below that of your hero.

Who's the hero?

It's a lady obviously.

Negatory, eco, the hero is our Scapegoater-in-chief, our Victim-in-chief, our destroyer-of-institutions-in-chief, and he's no lady, just a common lady-grabber.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.




Glad I could help.

But I don't see a difference, doc. It's shit on this side and shit on that side - tell me which is going to kill me?

Your vulgarity is the give-away.....

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at seeing your worldview punctured leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.

Actually you have always been vulgar, but that's hardly the topic. I just find it funny you sometimes say outloud that you did some thinking. like everyone didn't know who gives you your "thoughts".

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

Your demonizing abilities are in good working order today, Ms/Mr Chic, but still below that of your hero.

Who's the hero?

It's a lady obviously.

Negatory, eco, the hero is our Scapegoater-in-chief, our Victim-in-chief, our destroyer-of-institutions-in-chief, and he's no lady, just a common lady-grabber.

I'm not sure if that reders to Trump but if it does it's definitely wrong.

 

[bullwinkle]

1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.



4.The GOP interviewer put a stake through the heart of Dr Ford’s agenda early on. The legal principle involved is well-established, and in Latin expressed as Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It means that if one catches the witness in one lie, consider the entire testimony false and baseless.

Originally, Ford declined to appear Monday based on being unable to get to Washington due to a fear of flying. Fitting perfectly into the Democrat attempt to delay the seating of Judge Kavanaugh, she claimed she needed more time to find a way to travel.

“When the psychology professor testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, attorney Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor Republicans hired to conduct their line of questioning, inquired about Ford’s history of plane travel.

“May I ask, how did you get to Washington?” Mitchell asked.

Ford replied, “In an airplane.”

Mitchell went on to ask about several other trips Ford took for both work and pleasure despite her fear of flying. Ford, a California resident, shared that she flies every year to visit family in Delaware.” Donald Trump Jr. Slams Christine Blasey Ford's 'Selective' Fear of Flying

Sooo…..the first two nails in the coffin: the pretend voice, ‘doctored’ for this hearing, and the lie about being unable to travel by plane.

More?

Coming up.

Your demonizing abilities are in good working order today, Ms/Mr Chic, but still below that of your hero.

Who's the hero?

It's a lady obviously.

Negatory, eco, the hero is our Scapegoater-in-chief, our Victim-in-chief, our destroyer-of-institutions-in-chief, and he's no lady, just a common lady-grabber.

I'm not sure if that reders to Trump but if it does it's definitely wrong.

How so? I'm seriously interested in your thoughts, eco. I can only see thru my own eyes, and it is important to understand what others see.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.




Glad I could help.

But I don't see a difference, doc. It's shit on this side and shit on that side - tell me which is going to kill me?

Your vulgarity is the give-away.....

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at seeing your worldview punctured leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.

Actually you have always been vulgar, but that's hardly the topic. I just find it funny you sometimes say outloud that you did some thinking. like everyone didn't know who gives you your "thoughts".

Did you find any errors in any of my posts?

No?


Excellent.

Witness is dismissed.

Thank you keep us up to date, Dr.

Just to be specific - I want to understand all behind your genius - what is the difference between the first thesis and the second thesis?

Original view, prior to the hearings:
1.I must admit that my analysis changed completely after watching the hearings yesterday.

My original thesis was that Ford is simply a boilerplate Liberal activist who would go to the ends of the earth to prevent conservative control of the Supreme Court.


“Ford is also a Democrat, as well as an anti-Trump marcher, raising questions about the motive and timing of the allegations along with their veracity.”
https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/


Liberal liars are on display in every dark corner of society, and never more so than in the Congress.

One tends to build up an immunity to the nausea they cause.



View upon consideration of the claimant's testimony:
2.But the testimony yesterday gives a new insight into Christine Ford, one which cries out for more pity than vituperation.

3.The first hint of illness came when she began to testify in that husky little girl voice…”I’m just a defenseless little waif with no sophistication, unable to defend myself from this wicked, wicked world and this evil, evil man.”

The face and the accomplishments just didn’t go with that voice and the attempt to evince a less-than worldliness.




Glad I could help.

But I don't see a difference, doc. It's shit on this side and shit on that side - tell me which is going to kill me?

Your vulgarity is the give-away.....

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at seeing your worldview punctured leaks out as vulgarity.

That is why I never have to do the same.

Actually you have always been vulgar, but that's hardly the topic. I just find it funny you sometimes say outloud that you did some thinking. like everyone didn't know who gives you your "thoughts".

But it is the topic, as it reveals you as a liar.

I'm never vulgar.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

Ooooooh. I see.

They said you cant start more horse shit about this in politics section so you promoted yourself to be a doctor.