Oopsie. NY Times Corrects Hit Piece on Kavanaugh

[Papageorgio]

I did
It is very stupid and massively crushing for you.

SOmething that almost never happens to people is not memorable in its absence.

She has no memory of it and would have if it had happened.

You may think that the word salad you put up is an answer, but it's not.

I'll ask again and see if you can clearly answer it:

Do you have any trouble at all remembering that you never had a cock handed to you?

It was clear, concise and articulate and an absolute anseer you dishonest fool.

NOT ONE BIT'

is a clear concise and articulate answer even if we habve rpoven you are a iar and uneducated fool who does not grasp clear english

Asked and answered and your idiotic spin is a massive failure.

So - NO

You have absolutely no problem remembering that you never had a dick handed to you, so why do you think this person can't remember, such a memorable thing as NOT having had a cock handed to her?

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

 

[AntonToo]

You may think that the word salad you put up is an answer, but it's not.

I'll ask again and see if you can clearly answer it:

Do you have any trouble at all remembering that you never had a cock handed to you?

It was clear, concise and articulate and an absolute anseer you dishonest fool.

NOT ONE BIT'

is a clear concise and articulate answer even if we habve rpoven you are a iar and uneducated fool who does not grasp clear english

Asked and answered and your idiotic spin is a massive failure.

So - NO

You have absolutely no problem remembering that you never had a dick handed to you, so why do you think this person can't remember, such a memorable thing as NOT having had a cock handed to her?

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID claim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you I'll presume.

 

[Papageorgio]

It was clear, concise and articulate and an absolute anseer you dishonest fool.

NOT ONE BIT'

is a clear concise and articulate answer even if we habve rpoven you are a iar and uneducated fool who does not grasp clear english

Asked and answered and your idiotic spin is a massive failure.

So - NO

You have absolutely no problem remembering that you never had a dick handed to you, so why do you think this person can't remember, such a memorable thing as NOT having had a cock handed to her?

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID calim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively say that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you.

No, so it’s possible Clinton’s lawyer made it up.

 

[AntonToo]

So - NO

You have absolutely no problem remembering that you never had a dick handed to you, so why do you think this person can't remember, such a memorable thing as NOT having had a cock handed to her?

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID calim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively say that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you.

No, so it’s possible Clinton’s lawyer made it up.

It's also possible that he rapes kittens in his spare time, whats your point?

FBI did not follow up on his story AT ALL, which seems weird considering other similar claim they would be checking out in Brets background check.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

It would be memorable only if it happened which si true for anyone.

It is not memorable when I do not get punched out because it seldom happens.

It only becoomes memorable if it does

Saying you do not rememeber something happeniing is a refuation that it did.

You really need to develop a better grasp of logic.

..except it is very memorable to you that you never had a cock handed.

You can dance around that all you want but it's just not credible, by an example of your own memmory.

It is not memorable that something so out of the ordinary did not happen.

It would only be memorable if it did.

It is abssoolutely credible and memory works exactly like that.

We do not remmeber the mundane and ordinary and the lack of unusual events. We remember the unusual.

But it was memmorable to you and you can't explain that contradiction to your little theory that it wouldn't be memmorable.

I have stated no contradiction.

Now you are down to denying the obvious.

1. You say NOT getting handed a dick wouldn't be memmorable.
2. When asked if you were ever handed a dick, you say that you clearly remember that you were never handed a dick.

2 is a contradiction to 1. Contradiction is explained easily - it's weird for someone to not remember if they WERE OR WERE NOT handed a dick.

She remembers something, thats for sure, but what exactly she declined to say, so it's niether a corroboration nor contradiction to what someone else claimed.

She does not remmeber SOMETHING.

She would have said so.

You cvan keep hammering away all you like but you are proven wrong and proven a liar.

Absence of the extyraordinary is not memorable. Presence of the extraodrinay is memorable

Her lack of meory of an extraordinary claim is a contradiction to the allegation and that is an absolute fact.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It was clear, concise and articulate and an absolute anseer you dishonest fool.

NOT ONE BIT'

is a clear concise and articulate answer even if we habve rpoven you are a iar and uneducated fool who does not grasp clear english

Asked and answered and your idiotic spin is a massive failure.

So - NO

You have absolutely no problem remembering that you never had a dick handed to you, so why do you think this person can't remember, such a memorable thing as NOT having had a cock handed to her?

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

Wrong dumbass.

We remmeber the unusual and the day to day lack of the unusual is not memorable

So I'm wrong....and you DID have a dick handed to you?

Yes you are so wrong and proven a liar and proven a fool.

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable having one pushed into it is.

When you have no memory of the extraordinary it contradicts extraordinary allegations about you

 

[AntonToo]

..except it is very memorable to you that you never had a cock handed.

You can dance around that all you want but it's just not credible, by an example of your own memmory.

It is not memorable that something so out of the ordinary did not happen.

It would only be memorable if it did.

It is abssoolutely credible and memory works exactly like that.

We do not remmeber the mundane and ordinary and the lack of unusual events. We remember the unusual.

But it was memmorable to you and you can't explain that contradiction to your little theory that it wouldn't be memmorable.

I have stated no contradiction.

Now you are down to denying the obvious.

1. You say NOT getting handed a dick wouldn't be memmorable.
2. When asked if you were ever handed a dick, you say that you clearly remember that you were never handed a dick.

2 is a contradiction to 1. Contradiction is explained easily - it's weird for someone to not remember if they WERE OR WERE NOT handed a dick.

She remembers something, thats for sure, but what exactly she declined to say, so it's niether a corroboration nor contradiction to what someone else claimed.

She does not remmeber SOMETHING.

She would have said so.

Completely baseless conjecture - you don't know what she would or wouldn't and for what reasons. We know nothing about her.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Because it didn’t happen.

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID calim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively say that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you.

No, so it’s possible Clinton’s lawyer made it up.

It's also possible that he rapes kittens in his spare time, whats your point?

FBI did not follow up on his story AT ALL, which seems weird considering other similar claim they would be checking out in Brets background check.

That is normal because his story is a baseless allegation with no corroborating witness or evidence and it is contradicted by one of the victims.

 

[AntonToo]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

You want to do this claim-and-retort OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER? Ok, keep going. But you are not advancing your argument even an inch without being able to directly address that contradiction.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is not memorable that something so out of the ordinary did not happen.

It would only be memorable if it did.

It is abssoolutely credible and memory works exactly like that.

We do not remmeber the mundane and ordinary and the lack of unusual events. We remember the unusual.

But it was memmorable to you and you can't explain that contradiction to your little theory that it wouldn't be memmorable.

I have stated no contradiction.

Now you are down to denying the obvious.

1. You say NOT getting handed a dick wouldn't be memmorable.
2. When asked if you were ever handed a dick, you say that you clearly remember that you were never handed a dick.

2 is a contradiction to 1. Contradiction is explained easily - it's weird for someone to not remember if they WERE OR WERE NOT handed a dick.

She remembers something, thats for sure, but what exactly she declined to say, so it's niether a corroboration nor contradiction to what someone else claimed.

She does not remmeber SOMETHING.

She would have said so.

Completely baseless conjecture - you don't know what she would or wouldn't and for what reasons. We know nothing about her.

Wrong.

Completely logical conclusion.

She does not remember it which absolutely and clearly contradicts the allegation. That is what we know.

Claiming she remembers SOMETHING is baseless conjecture.

God you suck at this

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

I keep saying it because it is fact which you keep denying.

You have spun your head off trying to prove an idiotic point which you failed at.

It is not memorable when the extraordinary does not happen

 

[AntonToo]

Actually it did happen - he never had a dick handed and remembers that suprisingly clearly, considering his claims that it not happening wouldn't be memmorable.

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID calim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively say that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you.

No, so it’s possible Clinton’s lawyer made it up.

It's also possible that he rapes kittens in his spare time, whats your point?

FBI did not follow up on his story AT ALL, which seems weird considering other similar claim they would be checking out in Brets background check.

That is normal because his story is a baseless allegation with no corroborating witness or evidence and it is contradicted by one of the victims.

Conclusion, therefore evidence.

Good job dummy.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The alleged woman that he claimed happen to said she didn’t recall.

Well not her personally, but her freinds said she didn't recall.

But there was someone that DID calim to recall what happened and her not remembering does not constitute a condradiction to that claim.

I don't know anyone not being able to recall being or not being handed a cock. Do you?

I can say definetively say that it didn't happen at any party or dorm I've ever been to and so can Soupnazi and so can you.

No, so it’s possible Clinton’s lawyer made it up.

It's also possible that he rapes kittens in his spare time, whats your point?

FBI did not follow up on his story AT ALL, which seems weird considering other similar claim they would be checking out in Brets background check.

That is normal because his story is a baseless allegation with no corroborating witness or evidence and it is contradicted by one of the victims.

Conclusion, therefore evidence.

Good job dummy.

There is no evidence whatsoever.

Yes good job at owning your dumbass

 

[AntonToo]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

I keep saying it because it is fact which you keep denying.

You have spun your head off trying to prove an idiotic point which you failed at.

It is not memorable when the extraordinary does not happen

Extrodinary DID NOT HAPPEN and you remember clearly that it didn't happen.

Crazy, unexplainable shit, right?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

I keep saying it because it is fact which you keep denying.

You have spun your head off trying to prove an idiotic point which you failed at.

It is not memorable when the extraordinary does not happen

Extrodinary DID NOT HAPPEN and you remmember clearly it didn't happen.

Crazy, unexplainable shit, right?

Massive failure

You are persistent but you were wned and made a jackass out of your self from the start.

The absence of the extraordinary is not as memorable as the extraordinary.

You failed to even chalenge that fact and the alleged vic tim contradicts gthe allegation


And you know it

 

[AntonToo]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

I keep saying it because it is fact which you keep denying.

You have spun your head off trying to prove an idiotic point which you failed at.

It is not memorable when the extraordinary does not happen

Extrodinary DID NOT HAPPEN and you remmember clearly it didn't happen.

Crazy, unexplainable shit, right?

Massive failure

You are persistent but you were wned and made a jackass out of your self from the start.

The absence of the extraordinary is not as memorable as the extraordinary.

You failed to even chalenge that fact and the alleged vic tim contradicts gthe allegation

And you know it

Still, it not happening should be very memmorable according to you, right?

So why couldn't she remember according to her friends?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not having a dick pushed into your hand is not memorable

You keep saying it, but you have no problem remembering that it never happened to you.

I keep saying it because it is fact which you keep denying.

You have spun your head off trying to prove an idiotic point which you failed at.

It is not memorable when the extraordinary does not happen

Extrodinary DID NOT HAPPEN and you remmember clearly it didn't happen.

Crazy, unexplainable shit, right?

Massive failure

You are persistent but you were wned and made a jackass out of your self from the start.

The absence of the extraordinary is not as memorable as the extraordinary.

You failed to even chalenge that fact and the alleged vic tim contradicts gthe allegation

And you know it

Still, should be very memmorable according to you, right?

So why couldn't she remember according to her friends?

She specically told her freinds she did not remmber it happening.

That contradicts the allegation and most likely means it never happened.

You tried hard but failed to do anything except look stupid

 

[Lakhota]

SCOTUS now has two sexual perverts on the bench. Sad...

 

[Lakhota]

This is why most Americans will crawl naked over broken glass next November to vote for the guy we really don’t want as President.

They completely fabricated the entire story.

It’s all about smear.

View attachment 279531

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ts_outrageous_smear_of_justice_kavanaugh.html

You may feel a little stupid when the book comes out tomorrow - because this is all included in the book. It was just left out of the advance article on the book. The two authors were just interviewed on Lawrence O'Donnell. It sounds like the book will be very bad for Kavanaugh.

"The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation" by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.

 

[bluzman61]

New York Times Now Admits New Kavanaugh Accusation Is Fake News

"After the New York Times published their latest smear of Brett Kavanaugh, the left began foaming at the mouth, claiming that the article proved that Brett Kavanaugh lied during his confirmation hearing, that he is a proven rapist, etc., etc., etc. Those of us who actually read the article saw it for what it was: another unsubstantiated smear. Well, it looks like even the New York Times is admitting their article was fake news."

If there was any question the NYT is nothing but a yellow rag and is in league with radical-leftist Democrats.

"Despite the update, the damage has been done. Several 2020 Democrats jumped on the bogus allegations and called for Brett Kavanaugh's impeachment. How many of them will backtrack now that the New York Times has conceded the accusation in the article was even weaker than Elizabeth Warren's claim to be Native American?"

Democrats are fucking liars.

I don't think anyone with any intelligence takes the New York Times seriously. They are so anti-Trump and pro-liberal, it's just sickening. I'd love to see a rag like this go out of business, but unfortunately there are too many dumb liberals that read it.