They're addmitting it's true, they just don't care it's true and he lied

[bripat9643]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

**** all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

 

[forkup]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

**** all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

Tu quoque - Wikipedia
Read a bit, you might learn something.

 

[forkup]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

**** all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

 

[SweetSue92]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

**** all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

Yes, the Dem playbook: the Moral High Ground. I'm an "honest observer", you'd do well to learn from me, you'd be more likable and a better human.

Hey dude, 2013 called, it wants its Puritanical PC tactic back. Or are you not up on the latest?

Also, pukeworthy.

 

[forkup]

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

Yes, the Dem playbook: the Moral High Ground. I'm an "honest observer", you'd do well to learn from me, you'd be more likable and a better human.

Hey dude, 2013 called, it wants its Puritanical PC tactic back. Or are you not up on the latest?

Also, pukeworthy.

If you don't want me to take the moral high ground, it probably is a good idea to not call someone scum like Bripat did. I'm very sure you'd like it better when I just start flaming people so you claim me to be just as bad. I just don't roll that way. If you have a problem with that, just talk to me like you would talk to a normal human being. I know that in the age of Trump, those that just like to piss on the other side have found a poster boy. Wouldn't the country be better of if civility would make a comeback though?

 

[candycorn]

This is a last-minute desperate effort by the left to keep the court from becoming conservative. They always trot out the fragile woman card from 30 years ago when all else fails. How many times have we seen this now?

It does reek of desperation on the part of the Democrats. We'll see what happens in the hearings.

I hope to heck the woman absolutely falls apart--and this looks like a fair bet. By her professor rating, she looks plain nuts. And I must say the Democrats richly, richly deserve the public humiliation if she DOES fall apart. Oh, they richly deserve it.

OK

 

[bripat9643]

No side has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Dems spent so much time and effort apologizing for Bill "Boogie Nights" Clinton that they can't say shit about rape. They knew he did it and wanted him anyway.

**** all of you worthless hypocrites.

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

It isn't "sometimes." It's what scum like you do whenever anyone points out your craven hypocrisy. You're honest about being a hypocrite and that you're totally shameless about it.

Admitting you're a shameless scumbag doesn't make you more likeable.

 

[bripat9643]

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

Yes, the Dem playbook: the Moral High Ground. I'm an "honest observer", you'd do well to learn from me, you'd be more likable and a better human.

Hey dude, 2013 called, it wants its Puritanical PC tactic back. Or are you not up on the latest?

Also, pukeworthy.

If you don't want me to take the moral high ground, it probably is a good idea to not call someone scum like Bripat did. I'm very sure you'd like it better when I just start flaming people so you claim me to be just as bad. I just don't roll that way. If you have a problem with that, just talk to me like you would talk to a normal human being. I know that in the age of Trump, those that just like to piss on the other side have found a poster boy. Wouldn't the country be better of if civility would make a comeback though?

You, take the moral high ground? Please do. We can all use a good laugh.

 

[candycorn]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.

I wasn't there in 1983 when it should have been reported. I didn't stop her from reporting it. And **** you if you are saying I'm accepting of sexual assault.

How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.

Hogwash!

What not reporting it does is undermine the alleged assaulter's ability to mount a defense to the allegation.

Again, if it's serious enough today to bring up; it was serious enough to bring up 35 years ago.

This means investigation by the authorities.

• The police.
• A security guard.
• A guardian.
• Someone in charge of the location where it took place.

That it wasn't brought up 35 years ago means that it isn't serious enough to bring it up today.

Show me some sort of report to an authority figure and I'll change my opinion in an instant.

 

[candycorn]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

Yes, were Trump a Democrat, the religious right would be horrified by the antics he has gotten up to.

As he's a Republican, they don't care.

Thats likely true.

 

[theHawk]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.

How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.

So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.

Kavanaugh is the victim here.

 

[forkup]

Actually, the Democrats do have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Whenever they invoke the crime of "whataboutism," they are admitting they are hypocrites. They admit they don't care what their side has done, only what Republicans have done.

Dims are ******* scum.

They had to invent "whataboutism" because they know whenever it's invoked, they lose. That's what they do, like children on a second grade playground. Establish rules and they establish NEW rules when they start losing.

My contempt just hardens further, really, and I don't like saying that. But Dems, you really should stand up when your people employ these rotten dirty tricks. HIGH SCHOOL. Really?

Rotten dirty tricks like congress, flat out refusing to meet with a SCOTUS nominee? Changing the rules like getting rid of filibuster in order to get a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed? Whataboutism or "appeal to hypocrisy" like it is actually called is a logical fallacy used by both sides, or even all humans. Just come on this board when Trump has one of his many scandals. If the right comments on them, just see how many use,"what about Hillary" or " what about Obama".

There is no such fallacy as "appeal to hypocrisy." "Whataboutism" is an admission by scum like you that you are proud to be a hypocrit. It's an open admission that you don't care what your filthy party has done. You only care about what Republicans do.

By the way, admitting that you sometimes act hypocritical doesn't signal not caring what my party does. It doesn't signal me being scum. It signals me being an honest observer of my and other peoples behavior. It's another thing that you'd do well to learn. It not only makes you more likable to most people. It actually makes you a better human.

It isn't "sometimes." It's what scum like you do whenever anyone points out your craven hypocrisy. You're honest about being a hypocrite and that you're totally shameless about it.

Admitting you're a shameless scumbag doesn't make you more likeable.

You seem to have missed the fact that I just said everybody is hypocritical, not just me, EVERYBODY. The post I replied to was hypocritical. It gave a few examples, like "changing of rules." Something that the Republican congress did in order to get Gorsush confirmed and the Democrats before that to get regular judges confirmed. It talks about whataboutism while EVERYBODY, including you, regularly uses Clinton and Obama to deflect from something Trump did. The difference being that I'm capable to recognize and honest enough to say that I and the Democratic party are sometimes hypocritical. You on the other hand are incapable of doing so, even when it's pointed out to you. Even more, have to gall to call me craven because I do admit to it. From were I sit that DOES give me the moral high ground. I'm merely a hypocrite on occasions. You're a hypocrite, liar , not to mention ill mannered.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

And this is an example of the ignorance and acceptance of sexual assault that results in women refraining reporting being attacked.

How long ago a sexual assault occurred and whether it was reported to the authorities or not in no manner mitigates or undermines the legitimacy and severity of the attack, and it does not absolve the attacker of being responsible for the attack, or suffering the consequences of his actions.

So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.

Kavanaugh is the victim here.

I'm not sure anyone's convicting him. They want to investigate further.

 

[Care4all]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

C'mon man, it was 1983 and apparently the "attack" was so serious that there was no police investigation, police report, no authorities were called to investigate....nothing.

Show me where the victim was legitimately in fear of her life and took the standard and customary steps of calling the authorities, and I'll change my mind in a moment about this. But really....what's next? He jaywalked in 1985, stiffed a waitress on her tip in 1989...downloaded music from Napster in 1990 and scalped tickets to the Red Sox/Yankees playoff game?

I'm all for examining the man's record. The full professional record should be under scrutiny--something that the Republicans are hiding by the way. He may have committed some form of violence against this person; he may not have. But unless you report it; you can't play the card 35 years later and say it happened. I'll use the example again; if we got into a fist fight today and I don't call the police to investigate it or the College Dean or our supervisor at work (if it happened at work)...I cannot come back in the year 2053 and say you assaulted me, can I?

you can come decades later and say it, but there are statutes of limitation that prevents anything legal, coming from it, even if true....and expect to be bashed and lied about and gone over like a fine tooth comb, if you do, and maybe lose your own job and career.

Though I agree with most of what you have said...

Kavanaugh has lied about his handling of stolen Democratic documents, in his past hearing for the Appellate court... which came to light in this hearing with document releases.... he's opined the President should be King... and other things that I totally disagree with him and oppose him for those reason... no one needed this woman to come forward.

What you have missed is that most women that have been abused or sexually assaulted when they were 15 years old or any age, DO NOT COME FORWARD, for decades... women and girls are taught or were self taught, to man up, and keep their mouths shut, if they want to make it, in this man's world....

The me too movement shows that it takes decades for people who have been abused or sexually harrassed, to stand up and fight for themselves...

same with kids abused by pedophile priests...

I think there is some sort of mental harm, that makes this silence happen... they lock it away in some protected lock box in their brain.... I dunno?

 

[JoeB131]

So you'll be cool when #METOO comes after you with a "letter" claiming you sexually assaulted some girl, a long time ago. Oh yeah you did it! For sure. Because you know, we have this letter. You're good with that, right?

If it was just a letter, I'd say no.

But this woman is willing to testify in front of Congress, and we can all judge her credibility there.

 

[JoeB131]

So we should convict a man with no evidence and no actual police investigation or even a report by the “victim”.

Kavanaugh is the victim here.

No one said convict him.

Just don't give him a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS if we have legit concerns about his character.

What I'm not seeing, is this guy claiming he doesn't even know this woman.

 

[Care4all]

So you'll be cool when #METOO comes after you with a "letter" claiming you sexually assaulted some girl, a long time ago. Oh yeah you did it! For sure. Because you know, we have this letter. You're good with that, right?

If it was just a letter, I'd say no.

But this woman is willing to testify in front of Congress, and we can all judge her credibility there.

and the testimony will be under oath...

a felony if she lies...

and you can bet your booty with Mr vindictive, vengeful president, he'll Lock her UP.....!

 

[Windparadox]

`
Neither party has a moral high ground and the evangelicals are nothing more than a godless cult acting like a religion.

 

[Care4all]

Anita Hill, told the TRUTH about Clarence Thomas, and the near all Male senators voted yes, to put him on the Supreme Court.... only 2 women senators existed in the Senate! The next election, 4 more women were elected, that gave them 6 spots out of 100 in the Senate.... and now there is 30 some women out of 100.....in the Senate

It's slow moving, but eventually women Senators will be even split with men.... probably not in my lifetime though...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Here's another version of the same Op-Ed that is everywhere...

Is Brett Kavanaugh a nice guy? That's irrelevant. So is alleged sexual assault as a teen.

Paraphrasing -- he did it. He lied about it. We knew about it. We don't care we want our judge.

Situational ethics.

Wow....I had no idea a member of this board was there that night and saw everything? Why tell everyone just now?
I guess you just stood there and did nothing?