WWTBAM Bored

...the fact that this attack is not a recent invention.

So, it is a fact now? How did I miss that?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

...the fact that this attack is not a recent invention.

So, it is a fact now? How did I miss that?

Apparently by closing your eyes, poking your fingers in your ears, and singing "La la la" at the top of your lungs. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

...the fact that this attack is not a recent invention.

So, it is a fact now? How did I miss that?

Apparently by closing your eyes, poking your fingers in your ears, and singing "La la la" at the top of your lungs. --Bob

What other 'facts' have I missed? And I would never sing 'la la la'. I sing "Dancing Queen".

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

...the fact that this attack is not a recent invention.

So, it is a fact now? How did I miss that?

Apparently by closing your eyes, poking your fingers in your ears, and singing "La la la" at the top of your lungs. --Bob

How can it be a factual attack just because she said it was?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
So, it is a fact now? How did I miss that?

Apparently by closing your eyes, poking your fingers in your ears, and singing "La la la" at the top of your lungs. --Bob

What other 'facts' have I missed? And I would never sing 'la la la'. I sing "Dancing Queen".

People were talking about the incident since high school, she's been undergoing therapy for her reaction to the incident for years (she didn't feel safe in a bedroom unless it had two doors), and she described the incident years ago.

Something happened. Her account is credible and deserves to be taken seriously by a body that wants to reach the truth. Kavanaugh also deserves a chance to be heard after a fair process and a thorough investigation, including a search for contemporaneous witnesses who can confirm or refute parts of the parties' account.

Based on what I've seen and heard so far, I'm inclined to believe her for a simple reason. She's asked the FBI to investigate. He hasn't. Why would someone who's inventing this account want to ask the FBI to get involved? Why wouldn't someone who wants to clean an undeserved stain on his reputation want the FBI to search for the truth? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Apparently by closing your eyes, poking your fingers in your ears, and singing "La la la" at the top of your lungs. --Bob

What other 'facts' have I missed? And I would never sing 'la la la'. I sing "Dancing Queen".

People were talking about the incident since high school, she's been undergoing therapy for her reaction to the incident for years (she didn't feel safe in a bedroom unless it had two doors), and she described the incident years ago.

Something happened. Her account is credible and deserves to be taken seriously by a body that wants to reach the truth. Kavanaugh also deserves a chance to be heard after a fair process and a thorough investigation, including a search for contemporaneous witnesses who can confirm or refute parts of the parties' account.

Based on what I've seen and heard so far, I'm inclined to believe her for a simple reason. She's asked the FBI to investigate. He hasn't. Why would someone who's inventing this account want to ask the FBI to get involved? Why wouldn't someone who wants to clean an undeserved stain on his reputation want the FBI to search for the truth? --Bob

He said it didn't happen. There's that. You have obviously never been a juror on a serious case, like murder or something, which I have, and you would probably be disqualified since you have reached a verdict based on media accounts. Too bad because the ability to take evidence and judge's orders seriously are key to the jurisprudence system.

Why would someone who's inventing this account want to ask the FBI to get involved?

Delay, Delay, Delay.

Bob78164 wrote:Looks like I was mistaken. She's actually been talking about this incident since high school. --Bob

You're even wrong about being wrong.

...Based on what I've seen and heard so far, I'm inclined to believe her for a simple reason. She's asked the FBI to investigate. He hasn't.

Ahhhh. You got the same memo as Kirsten Gillibrand! Did it come in over the BatPhone??!!

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: What other 'facts' have I missed? And I would never sing 'la la la'. I sing "Dancing Queen".

People were talking about the incident since high school, she's been undergoing therapy for her reaction to the incident for years (she didn't feel safe in a bedroom unless it had two doors), and she described the incident years ago.

Something happened. Her account is credible and deserves to be taken seriously by a body that wants to reach the truth. Kavanaugh also deserves a chance to be heard after a fair process and a thorough investigation, including a search for contemporaneous witnesses who can confirm or refute parts of the parties' account.

Based on what I've seen and heard so far, I'm inclined to believe her for a simple reason. She's asked the FBI to investigate. He hasn't. Why would someone who's inventing this account want to ask the FBI to get involved? Why wouldn't someone who wants to clean an undeserved stain on his reputation want the FBI to search for the truth? --Bob

He said it didn't happen. There's that. You have obviously never been a juror on a serious case, like murder or something, which I have, and you would probably be disqualified since you have reached a verdict based on media accounts. Too bad because the ability to take evidence and judge's orders seriously are key to the jurisprudence system.

Which is why I said, "Based on what I've seen so far." This isn't a court trial. There will never be a court trial, unless he decides he wants one by suing her for defamation. Which as far as I know, he hasn't done. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Why would someone who's inventing this account want to ask the FBI to get involved?

Delay, Delay, Delay.

These entire proceedings have been a kangaroo court with the Republicans trying to ram things through without allowing time to review Kavanaugh's records or now even a few days for the FBI to investigate. We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in this country and a man who has already shown a propensity to play fast and loose with the truth during his testimony.

And I may have missed it, but where was your sense of outrage when the Republicans flat out denied instead of merely tried to delay any hearings on Merrick Garland?

If I may, I would like to ask a question of those who doubt Dr. Ford's claims.

Recently a number of men have come forward to say that they were molested by Catholic priests in Pennsylvania. These are just the most recent such claims. Those of you who doubt Dr. Ford, do you believe the claims of these young men? Are their claims not just as dubious as you say hers are? They happened long ago, and they weren't discussed or reported.

And if your answer is "because there are so many such claims", how many does it take for a claim to become credible? One, five, ten, more?

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay. Facts don’t matter. I go through this with them every single day in D.C.

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:]I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?

After three days of actually acting semi-presidential about this matter, Trump went to a campaign rally in Nevada last night and got fired up by Hannity and his usual crowd of supporters and has now taken the gloves off this morning. He's certainly an expert on why women would be reluctant to bring accusations of sexual misconduct against a rich and powerful man.

earendel wrote:If I may, I would like to ask a question of those who doubt Dr. Ford's claims.

Recently a number of men have come forward to say that they were molested by Catholic priests in Pennsylvania. These are just the most recent such claims. Those of you who doubt Dr. Ford, do you believe the claims of these young men? Are their claims not just as dubious as you say hers are? They happened long ago, and they weren't discussed or reported.

And if your answer is "because there are so many such claims", how many does it take for a claim to become credible? One, five, ten, more?

None of those claims were held back until it was politically advantageous to bring forward.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?

Of course, 36 years ago it would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. But here's an example (from Tarrant County, Texas) of what happened to someone who did promptly report her rape, and even had physical evidence to corroborate her account. Neither the detective who investigated the crime nor the victim herself were ever called to testify before the grand jury. The accused rapists were never questioned by police. No one was ever indicted. And the victim and her family were hounded out of the community. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?

Of course, 36 years ago it would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. But here's an example (from Tarrant County, Texas) of what happened to someone who did promptly report her rape, and even had physical evidence to corroborate her account. Neither the detective who investigated the crime nor the victim herself were ever called to testify before the grand jury. The accused rapists were never questioned by police. No one was ever indicted. And the victim and her family were hounded out of the community. --Bob

I am whipping out my outrage! (I was late with it, cause I dropped it when I tried to take it out of my wallet.)
I want a batphone!!!! I need to get these alerts too!

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Donald Trump 9-21-18 wrote:The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?

Of course, 36 years ago it would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. But here's an example (from Tarrant County, Texas) of what happened to someone who did promptly report her rape, and even had physical evidence to corroborate her account. Neither the detective who investigated the crime nor the victim herself were ever called to testify before the grand jury. The accused rapists were never questioned by police. No one was ever indicted. And the victim and her family were hounded out of the community. --Bob

Whataboutism.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Of course, 36 years ago it would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. But here's an example (from Tarrant County, Texas) of what happened to someone who did promptly report her rape, and even had physical evidence to corroborate her account. Neither the detective who investigated the crime nor the victim herself were ever called to testify before the grand jury. The accused rapists were never questioned by police. No one was ever indicted. And the victim and her family were hounded out of the community. --Bob

Whataboutism.

Not exactly. You don't really think this (the Texas story recounted in the Post) was an isolated incident, do you?

It illustrates why a 15-year-old Christine Blasey might have been reluctant to report her attack contemporaneously, and why that fear might have been well founded. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Of course, 36 years ago it would have been a matter for local police, not the FBI. But here's an example (from Tarrant County, Texas) of what happened to someone who did promptly report her rape, and even had physical evidence to corroborate her account. Neither the detective who investigated the crime nor the victim herself were ever called to testify before the grand jury. The accused rapists were never questioned by police. No one was ever indicted. And the victim and her family were hounded out of the community. --Bob

Whataboutism.

Not exactly. You don't really think this (the Texas story recounted in the Post) was an isolated incident, do you?

It illustrates why a 15-year-old Christine Blasey might have been reluctant to report her attack contemporaneously, and why that fear might have been well founded. --Bob

Because she heard about it? Wha?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Whataboutism.

Not exactly. You don't really think this (the Texas story recounted in the Post) was an isolated incident, do you?

It illustrates why a 15-year-old Christine Blasey might have been reluctant to report her attack contemporaneously, and why that fear might have been well founded. --Bob

Because she heard about it? Wha?

Because back then, stories of acquaintance rape (and that's what we're talking about here) often went unbelieved. She won't have heard about that particular story, which is why I called it an illustration. But back then, I'm pretty sure there were still states where it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. That was the culture she had to deal with back then. Donny is way out of line to suggest her report isn't worthy of credence just because she didn't report it to the police then. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Donny is way out of line to suggest her report isn't worthy of credence just because she didn't report it to the police then. --Bob

Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks so. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Not exactly. You don't really think this (the Texas story recounted in the Post) was an isolated incident, do you?

It illustrates why a 15-year-old Christine Blasey might have been reluctant to report her attack contemporaneously, and why that fear might have been well founded. --Bob

Because she heard about it? Wha?

Because back then, stories of acquaintance rape (and that's what we're talking about here) often went unbelieved. She won't have heard about that particular story, which is why I called it an illustration. But back then, I'm pretty sure there were still states where it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife. That was the culture she had to deal with back then. Donny is way out of line to suggest her report isn't worthy of credence just because she didn't report it to the police then. --Bob

Gosh, 45+ years ago I knew a university student who pursued rape charges against a guy. You all keep moving the timelines on a rolling average to accommodate your narratives. What's up with that? Which brings me to the point, my feelings only apply to this case, which gut feeling to me is bogus. And so far not substantiated

Bob78164 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Donny is way out of line to suggest her report isn't worthy of credence just because she didn't report it to the police then. --Bob

Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks so. --Bob

When someone is being tried in the media, there is no end to people's opinions. I'm glad to hear the opinions of Susan Collins. She has every right to express them. So does President trump. Whatever opinion you have, I'm SUUURRRREEE you can find someone who shares it.

You keep referring to it as attempted rape, sir. You are a lawyer. Alan Dershowitz is one, too. His opinion is that you should stop referring to it as that, because, according to Maryland Law, even if everything she says is true, it was not attempted rape. I think you are 'way out of line' to refer to it as such. As I think many of your dem comrades are 'way out of line' to assume he is guilty of it.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/2 ... s-are-true

There. I'm not the only one that thinks so. Does that make my point valid in your mind?
So why do you think citing Susan Collins is going to change mine?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: There. I'm not the only one that thinks so. Does that make my point valid in your mind?

Dershowitz doesn't cite any Maryland authority for his proposition because there doesn't appear to be any. Attempted rape requires intent and an overt act. The attempt to remove Dr. Ford's clothes could be interpreted by a jury as an overt act. Even if not, his conduct would constitute sexual assault under Maryland law.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: There. I'm not the only one that thinks so. Does that make my point valid in your mind?

Dershowitz doesn't cite any Maryland authority for his proposition because there doesn't appear to be any. Attempted rape requires intent and an overt act. The attempt to remove Dr. Ford's clothes could be interpreted by a jury as an overt act. Even if not, his conduct would constitute sexual assault under Maryland law.

Just to clue you in, Mr. Ryerson: My point was that you could find anybody to cite anything you want today. Not that I think Dershowitz is the ultimate source of truth. Subtlety is lost on you, I'm afraid.

You are an idiot: Here are some citations:

http://filmthreat.com/news/movie-critics-are-idiots/

https://www.theburningplatform.com/tag/sss-is-an-idiot/