WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:So why do you think citing Susan Collins is going to change mine?

I don't think Senator Collins's opinion is more persuasive than yours (or mine). I think it's more important.

By the way, here's another first-hand account by a survivor who chose not to report her assault (to anyone) and no longer remembers some of the surrounding details. In this case, it happened to Ronald Reagan's daughter. --Bob

You have to pay the Post to read it though.

But I read fast, before the pay-screen comes on.

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:So why do you think citing Susan Collins is going to change mine?

I don't think Senator Collins's opinion is more persuasive than yours (or mine). I think it's more important.

By the way, here's another first-hand account by a survivor who chose not to report her assault (to anyone) and no longer remembers some of the surrounding details. In this case, it happened to Ronald Reagan's daughter. --Bob

Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

Free link

https://www.advocate.com/crime/2018/9/2 ... stine-ford

ghostjmf wrote:Free link

https://www.advocate.com/crime/2018/9/2 ... stine-ford

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:So why do you think citing Susan Collins is going to change mine?

I don't think Senator Collins's opinion is more persuasive than yours (or mine). I think it's more important.

By the way, here's another first-hand account by a survivor who chose not to report her assault (to anyone) and no longer remembers some of the surrounding details. In this case, it happened to Ronald Reagan's daughter. --Bob

Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I don't think Senator Collins's opinion is more persuasive than yours (or mine). I think it's more important.

By the way, here's another first-hand account by a survivor who chose not to report her assault (to anyone) and no longer remembers some of the surrounding details. In this case, it happened to Ronald Reagan's daughter. --Bob

Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

In a court of law, not in a dem controlled media circus.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

In a court of law, not in a dem controlled media circus.

That won't happen unless Kavanaugh sues her for defamation. It should happen by the FBI as part of his background check.

And if you think the Democrats are controlling the Judiciary Committee's agenda, you're delusional. If the Democrats were in control, these allegations would receive the time and attention that they deserve. That's what Congressional Republicans are afraid of.

By the way, that suggests to me that they don't have much confidence in Kavanaugh. If they were confident of his innocence, they'd be pushing just as hard as Dr. Blasey Ford is for a full and fair investigation by the FBI. I think that isn't happening because they're afraid she's telling the truth. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I don't think Senator Collins's opinion is more persuasive than yours (or mine). I think it's more important.

By the way, here's another first-hand account by a survivor who chose not to report her assault (to anyone) and no longer remembers some of the surrounding details. In this case, it happened to Ronald Reagan's daughter. --Bob

Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

You don't get to determine the definition of rush. Rush can be days, months, years. Tough nuggies.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Your statement on Collins's opinion cements your predisposition of hope for no confirmation. Admit bias. I do.
You don't care about discussion on the actual topic, just who's gonna derail the vote. I say put them both in front of the star chamber.

I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

You don't get to determine the definition of rush. Rush can be days, months, years. Tough nuggies.

Ultimately, the voters do. And I'm a voter.

But I think I'm hearing you say that it's okay to push this nomination through before it can be fully and fairly investigated simply because Republicans have the raw power to do so. That's certainly a lesson I think voters are taking from what's happening -- the party that spent years investigating the Clintons isn't willing to spend weeks investigating a nominee for a lifetime appointment. I don't think voters like that idea, so we'll see if they pull that power away from Republicans. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I've been quite clear that due to Kavanaugh's judicial views, I don't want him confirmed. But these allegations are credible and they deserve a full and fair hearing, not a rush to get him confirmed in the next week or so. --Bob

You don't get to determine the definition of rush. Rush can be days, months, years. Tough nuggies.

Ultimately, the voters do. And I'm a voter.

But I think I'm hearing you say that it's okay to push this nomination through before it can be fully and fairly investigated simply because Republicans have the raw power to do so. That's certainly a lesson I think voters are taking from what's happening -- the party that spent years investigating the Clintons isn't willing to spend weeks investigating a nominee for a lifetime appointment. I don't think voters like that idea, so we'll see if they pull that power away from Republicans. --Bob

Clinton had a variety of fun stuff to investigate. Let's deal with the one thing in the Kavanaugh case expeditiously.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
You don't get to determine the definition of rush. Rush can be days, months, years. Tough nuggies.

Ultimately, the voters do. And I'm a voter.

But I think I'm hearing you say that it's okay to push this nomination through before it can be fully and fairly investigated simply because Republicans have the raw power to do so. That's certainly a lesson I think voters are taking from what's happening -- the party that spent years investigating the Clintons isn't willing to spend weeks investigating a nominee for a lifetime appointment. I don't think voters like that idea, so we'll see if they pull that power away from Republicans. --Bob

Clinton had a variety of fun stuff to investigate. Let's deal with the one thing in the Kavanaugh case expeditiously.

More important to deal with it right. We already know that the Court can get by for quite a while with only eight Members. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:More important [to Bob] to deal with it [the way Bob thinks is] right. We already know that the Court can get by for quite a while with only eight Members. --Bob

Fixed!

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:More important [to Bob] to deal with it [the way Bob thinks is] right. We already know that the Court can get by for quite a while with only eight Members. --Bob

Fixed!

I can't wait for Republican Senators to campaign on the message that it's more important to rush someone onto the Court than it is to take the time to get to the bottom of a credible allegation of attempted forcible rape. It's a perfect way to illustrate their utter moral vacuity. --Bob

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:More important [to Bob] to deal with it [the way Bob thinks is] right. We already know that the Court can get by for quite a while with only eight Members. --Bob

Fixed!

Riddle me this: How will it hurt the country to wait a month or two for the FBI to investigate the allegations and report on its findings before giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment? And when you answer, please try to remember that there's a difference between the Republican Party and the country. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:More important [to Bob] to deal with it [the way Bob thinks is] right. We already know that the Court can get by for quite a while with only eight Members. --Bob

Fixed!

Riddle me this: How will it hurt the country to wait a month or two for the FBI to investigate the allegations and report on its findings before giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment? And when you answer, please try to remember that there's a difference between the Republican Party and the country. --Bob

Because a sizable percent of the citizens of this country are completely fed up with the grandstanding, ass-clowning and total disregard of decorum of the democrat party. It's bad enough we get it from trump. The democrat party has no concern for the well-being of this woman. They are using her as a political tool. This man may or may not have done a despicable thing in high school, but by all accounts that I know of, he has led an honorable life since then. That is more than you can say for your idols, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, et al. He has gone through 6 FBI background checks already. If she wants an investigation, let her file charges in court. The Committee is bending over backwards to provide her with her opportunity to testify, but she has not yet, as far as I know, agreed to do so. She has absolutely no right to demand an investigation. If her testimony raises any new information, the parties in charge are on record saying that it will be considered. But Kavanaugh has the absolute right to confront his accuser. And so far, it looks like the credibility is in his favor, in my opinion. What you need to remember is there is a difference between your opinions and reality.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:
Fixed!

Riddle me this: How will it hurt the country to wait a month or two for the FBI to investigate the allegations and report on its findings before giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment? And when you answer, please try to remember that there's a difference between the Republican Party and the country. --Bob

Because a sizable percent of the citizens of this country are completely fed up with the grandstanding, ass-clowning and total disregard of decorum of the democrat party. It's bad enough we get it from trump. The democrat party has no concern for the well-being of this woman. They are using her as a political tool. This man may or may not have done a despicable thing in high school, but by all accounts that I know of, he has led an honorable life since then. That is more than you can say for your idols, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, et al. He has gone through 6 FBI background checks already. If she wants an investigation, let her file charges in court. The Committee is bending over backwards to provide her with her opportunity to testify, but she has not yet, as far as I know, agreed to do so. She has absolutely no right to demand an investigation. If her testimony raises any new information, the parties in charge are on record saying that it will be considered. But Kavanaugh has the absolute right to confront his accuser. And so far, it looks like the credibility is in his favor, in my opinion. What you need to remember is there is a difference between your opinions and reality.

Leaving aside your continuing despicable attempts to minimize attempted forcible rape (if he did what she claims, I don't care whether he's led an exemplary life since then, and I don't think most of the country does either), none of this responds to my question. How does a two-month delay for an FBI investigation to reach the truth before considering whether to give the man a lifetime appointment hurt the country? --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If she wants an investigation, let her file charges in court. The Committee is bending over backwards to provide her with her opportunity to testify, but she has not yet, as far as I know, agreed to do so. She has absolutely no right to demand an investigation.

She has no right to demand an investigation, but the committee and the American people do. To reiterate, this man is going to be named to the highest court in the United States and is the most unpopular nominee with the American public of any candidate since they began keeping tabs on such things, but you feel it's unreasonable for the FBI to check on her allegations. In the meantime, you had no problem with some right wing stooge running his own "background check" and identifying some classmate of Kavanaugh's as the likely "real" attacker or with all the other baseless slurs that have sprung up around her.

As far as the FBI's six background checks, did they look that far back? Did they talk to Mike Judge (who the Republicans still don't want anywhere near the witness stand)? Did they talk to any of the people at this girl's high school (who were apparently aware at least that something went on)? A general check into a 50+ year old man's overall record isn't the same as a specific check on one event of which they might well not have been aware of.

And despite what you say, the Republicans have not bent over backwards to accommodate her. They have tried to bully her every step of the way, because their intent is for her not to testify. Grassley first relayed his last offer to her attorney for the first time at 2:30 pm and gave her until 5:00 to decide. That's a lot of time to review the so-called offer, discuss it with her and possibly whatever people she has close to her and make a decision on whether to put herself even more in the public grinder.

And now, after keeping his Twitter feed shut for several days, Donald Trump, the sexual abuser himself, is out there being as vicious towards her as anybody. What the American people are fed up with are tactics like this that the Republicans employ at every opportunity to bully her the same way they have done with everyone else who possibly stood in their way.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: What you need to remember is there is a difference between your opinions and reality.

And there's a much bigger difference between your opinions, which are spoonfed to you by Breitbart, Donald Trump, and Fox News through their noise machines, and reality.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: What you need to remember is there is a difference between your opinions and reality.

And there's a much bigger difference between your opinions, which are spoonfed to you by Breitbart, Donald Trump, and Fox News through their noise machines, and reality.

Still Hysterical in Punxsutawney. They should make a movie.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

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/

I congratulate you Flock. For once, you came up with a post that wasn't pulled directly from the right wing noise machine. Of course, in this case, you came up with a source that's just about as disgusting, your rear end. And, the result was a post that probably makes the least amount of sense of anything you've ever posted here, and that's quite an accomplishment.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
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/

I congratulate you Flock. For once, you came up with a post that wasn't pulled directly from the right wing noise machine. Of course, in this case, you came up with a source that's just about as disgusting, your rear end. And, the result was a post that probably makes the least amount of sense of anything you've ever posted here, and that's quite an accomplishment.

You still don't have a clue. Can someone tell him what he's missing?
I got you, babe.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You still don't have a clue. Can someone tell him what he's missing?
I got you, babe.

If I'm missing the inner workings of your mind, I'm not missing very much.

Bill Cosby will be sentenced on Monday and could get up to 30 years.

Bob Juch wrote:Bill Cosby will be sentenced on Monday and could get up to 30 years.

He is not a Supreme Court Nominee.