SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
18
60%
No
12
40%
 
Total votes : 30

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:13 am

The language she used in her statement is so god damn eye rolling and histrionic. Can't any of the extremists see that while it plays to fringe lunatics like Bibl and SD the language they are using is turning off such a large part of America that it can actually hurt the cause they profess to be trying to stand up for?

Everything is so damned hyperbolic in politics now -- whether it be Trump and his "best EVAR" crap or people like Pelosi who as soon as she heard about Kavanaugh it was "millions are going to die".

More and more, when I think of politicians and how they speak, I think of this bit from AD

Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 7039
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 307 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:05 am

Commander Bubbles wrote:
PanteraCanes wrote:Howard Stern is going to be so pissed. Going to be like a bull ride to see how long I can listen before I have to turn away.


I stopped listening weeks ago. I hate it when he and Robin talk politics.


Appears he is on vacation. I guess it has been 2 or 3 weeks since he took a month off.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:27 am

deltbucs wrote:I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part. I think it's bullshit to me that judges can be partisan to begin with. That said, I think the (R)'s should get to nominate their guy before the midterms. That said, **** this guy. What this hearing shows is that the truth isn't the most important thing to him. If he didn't sexual assault the woman, good. Let the facts prove it. Instead this guy is lying his ass off up there. I couldn't give a **** if he got blackout drunk and had a 3-some 50 years ago in high school, but don't ****ing lie about it...or ask if someone else has ever gotten blackout drunk. Again...I want the (R)'s to have a chance to confirm someone, but pick someone else. If you want to be on the Supreme Court, the truth should be of more importance to you.

I know pretty much everyone here on the left didn't want him confirmed either way, but how do you folks on the right feel about this? Do you think that Kavanaugh was being totally honest? Do you acknowledge that he, at the least, bent the truth for the purpose of self-preservation/getting himself nominated? Do you not feel that this disregard for the truth should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court nominee?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Rocker » Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:25 am

deltbucs wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part. I think it's bullshit to me that judges can be partisan to begin with. That said, I think the (R)'s should get to nominate their guy before the midterms. That said, **** this guy. What this hearing shows is that the truth isn't the most important thing to him. If he didn't sexual assault the woman, good. Let the facts prove it. Instead this guy is lying his ass off up there. I couldn't give a **** if he got blackout drunk and had a 3-some 50 years ago in high school, but don't ****ing lie about it...or ask if someone else has ever gotten blackout drunk. Again...I want the (R)'s to have a chance to confirm someone, but pick someone else. If you want to be on the Supreme Court, the truth should be of more importance to you.

I know pretty much everyone here on the left didn't want him confirmed either way, but how do you folks on the right feel about this? Do you think that Kavanaugh was being totally honest? Do you acknowledge that he, at the least, bent the truth for the purpose of self-preservation/getting himself nominated? Do you not feel that this disregard for the truth should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court nominee?



I’m not certain that I could be 100% accurate on a subject or event that occurred over 30 years ago. Do I think some level of inappropriate behavior happened? Probably - but I’m not certain it got to the level of the allegations, and I choose to go with the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, I’m inclined to be a bit more forgiving of impropriety during the formative years. I withhold the right to burn him at the stake until I’ve seen him in action and have a chance to read some of his dissents.

Probably doesn’t fully answer your question, but that’s the basics of where I stand at the moment.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 4203
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:00 am

deltbucs wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I've stayed out of this discussion for the most part. I think it's bullshit to me that judges can be partisan to begin with. That said, I think the (R)'s should get to nominate their guy before the midterms. That said, **** this guy. What this hearing shows is that the truth isn't the most important thing to him. If he didn't sexual assault the woman, good. Let the facts prove it. Instead this guy is lying his ass off up there. I couldn't give a **** if he got blackout drunk and had a 3-some 50 years ago in high school, but don't ****ing lie about it...or ask if someone else has ever gotten blackout drunk. Again...I want the (R)'s to have a chance to confirm someone, but pick someone else. If you want to be on the Supreme Court, the truth should be of more importance to you.

I know pretty much everyone here on the left didn't want him confirmed either way, but how do you folks on the right feel about this? Do you think that Kavanaugh was being totally honest? Do you acknowledge that he, at the least, bent the truth for the purpose of self-preservation/getting himself nominated? Do you not feel that this disregard for the truth should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court nominee?


Are you claiming he was "bending the truth for self-preservation" or he had "disregard for the truth"? Or is it both, and you're saying they are the same?

Either way, I'd like to see the transcript or video of whatever it is you're specifically citing here to see what was actually asked and how it was answered.

I do think it's fair to say BK was probably not as detailed in his responses about his HS drinking as he could have been for obvious reasons. I don't view that as disqualifying UNLESS it can be actually proven he lied. The left was trying to get ammo to support the narrative that drinking = getting black out drunk = memory loss = can't remember the incident Dr. is alleging. So thus BK was guarded in his responses b/c any details provided would've been twisted into the least charitable version possible. Which is why he was generic with is answers like 'whatever the chart says' in when asked 'how many is too much'? If that is called "bending the truth" then so be it. I don't have a problem with it in that situation. I don't believe that is a disregard for the truth.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:08 am

Rocker wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I know pretty much everyone here on the left didn't want him confirmed either way, but how do you folks on the right feel about this? Do you think that Kavanaugh was being totally honest? Do you acknowledge that he, at the least, bent the truth for the purpose of self-preservation/getting himself nominated? Do you not feel that this disregard for the truth should be disqualifying for a Supreme Court nominee?



I’m not certain that I could be 100% accurate on a subject or event that occurred over 30 years ago. Do I think some level of inappropriate behavior happened? Probably - but I’m not certain it got to the level of the allegations, and I choose to go with the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, I’m inclined to be a bit more forgiving of impropriety during the formative years. I withhold the right to burn him at the stake until I’ve seen him in action and have a chance to read some of his dissents.

Probably doesn’t fully answer your question, but that’s the basics of where I stand at the moment.

I fully agree with you. It might be easier to see that if you read my whole original comment that I quoted. I'm actually coming from the viewpoint of assuming the against him are allegations are false. I don't think that any of us really believe that "Devil's Triangle" is really a drinking game, for instance. Or "Renate Alumnius" was a term of endearment. There seemed to be quite a few things that he lied about in the name of self-preservation/getting himself nominated. Here's the first result from a google search...
https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

I believe this to be disqualifying. I believe that if Ford was indeed lying about this whole thing, he needs to fight her "lies" with facts. Fighting her "lies" with lies and having any disregard for the truth disqualifies him from the job, IMO.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:04 pm

On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:19 pm

Ken Carson wrote:On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.

Even if I did keep a calendar at 17, recording a drinking game one time that I apparently played a lot with my buddies wouldn't strike you as the least bit strange?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:24 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.

Even if I did keep a calendar at 17, recording a drinking game one time that I apparently played a lot with my buddies wouldn't strike you as the least bit strange?


Wasn't "Devil's Triangle" pulled from the yearbook (not the calendar)??
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:38 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Even if I did keep a calendar at 17, recording a drinking game one time that I apparently played a lot with my buddies wouldn't strike you as the least bit strange?


Wasn't "Devil's Triangle" pulled from the yearbook (not the calendar)??

You're right. Thought I read that came from the calendar.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:45 pm

At least we ruined his life...
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:51 pm

HamBone wrote:At least we ruined his life...


I really just feel bad for his family, namely his wife and especially his two daughters.

It was really shameful how this was handled and played itself out.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:55 pm

HamBone wrote:At least we ruined his life...

That's such a bs line. He got confirmed. His actions from the past came back to haunt him. Stop acting like he's the victim in all this.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:00 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
HamBone wrote:At least we ruined his life...

That's such a bs line. He got confirmed. His actions from the past came back to haunt him. Stop acting like he's the victim in all this.


It’s a quote...Areil Dumas
Last edited by HamBone on Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:00 pm

Is Brett waiting until Monday to outlaw women’s healthcare and democracy?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:05 pm

Ken Carson wrote:On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.

I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5416
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:14 pm

HamBone wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:That's such a bs line. He got confirmed. His actions from the past came back to haunt him. Stop acting like he's the victim in all this.


It’s a quote...Areil Dumas

God, you guys love playing the victim card a lot these days. "Oh noes! A comedy writer most people never heard of made a sarcastic joke after he was confirmed! We can't stand for this sort of hatred!"
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:21 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
HamBone wrote:
It’s a quote...Areil Dumas

God, you guys love playing the victim card a lot these days. "Oh noes! A comedy writer most people never heard of made a sarcastic joke after he was confirmed! We can't stand for this sort of hatred!"


Lol...you took it way more serious than I did. I actually thought it was humorous. But, please continue.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:24 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.

I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.

Sure, I get the fact that there were a lot of things. I just feel like people who laser-focused on it just not have had friends in high school or participated in inside jokes. If 50-year old people are writing about sexual stuff and drinking/drug references, that is one thing. When a 18-year old does it, I don’t take any of it literally. Maybe it’s my experience as a high school teacher speaking, but high schoolers are 98% talk, 2% action.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:36 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.

Sure, I get the fact that there were a lot of things. I just feel like people who laser-focused on it just not have had friends in high school or participated in inside jokes. If 50-year old people are writing about sexual stuff and drinking/drug references, that is one thing. When a 18-year old does it, I don’t take any of it literally. Maybe it’s my experience as a high school teacher speaking, but high schoolers are 98% talk, 2% action.


Pretty sure you're a gang rapist. At least more likely than not. :twisted:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:43 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:On the Devil’s Triangle thing... do you think it is more likely that 17 year old boys were having 3 ways or that they made up a version of quarters that involved 3 glasses and named after a sexual term that they all thought was funny?

I used the example before... my high school flag football team was the Cleveland Steamers. In college my intramural team was the Circle Jerks. We got together and drank beer, but those things were just words and concepts that we found hilarious.

I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.


lol fair warning, this is a pretty vulgar post:

bro. here's the thing. I can tell you, back in my Halo-playing, mountain dew drinking, high school days, we used to joke on and on and on about "Eiffel towering" a girl, or "tea bagging" people, or giving a girl an "arabian gas mask", or doing a "dale earnhardt", or a "harry houdini" - all 20 or so of us that regularly hung out - probably said/used those terms in the thousands. How many times do you think any of us actually did ANY of that? You know the answer: ZERO. Zero freaking times did any of us actually do any of the ridiculous crude sexual acts that we, as 14-19 year old boys, regularly joked about every day. Zero. But we joked about it EVERY. DAMN. DAY. It was the type of **** that was so prevalent in our retarded (pardon me, BIBL, but its a very apt description of our mindset) late-teen lexicon. And every. Last. Bit of it. Was bullshit. Its all inside jokes. Its all fake, posturing, BULLSHIT. And EVERYONE talked like that in high school. Everyone. We knew because you'd get on Halo online and talk ****, and every other dude our age is saying the same dumb bullshit. We'd go visit our buddy that lived in a different state, once we got to college, and these dumbasses used the exact same type of bullshit language, and just like us, it was allllll bullshit! You think any of us (who were decent at pulling tail in our own right) had ANY ability to pull off a threesome!? I mean what an astronomical ridiculous notion that any of us were suave enough to pull that **** off, that any girl would do that with us - but we sure as **** talked like we did. And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!? LOL

This isn't some freakin revelation. To all the 20 year old+ guys out there white-knighting about this ****: you've either completely blacked out 5-10 years of your memory, or you're being completely disingenuous, or you were part of some incredible minority of guys that I still have yet to meet in person (who seem to only exist on the internet), who never talked like that in their late teens - or you were an INCREDIBLY sheltered christian kid (maybe 5% of the guys out there?). The rest is fake ass pearl clutching (thanks, whoever said that term a couple pages back, its perfect)

I mean, give me a fuckin break about all this...
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 423 times
Been thanked: 292 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:55 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:13 pm

Trump goes out and publicly says that Ford made it all up. If he wasn't POTUS, he might have gotten in trouble for that.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:23 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Trump goes out and publicly says that Ford made it all up. If he wasn't POTUS, he might have gotten in trouble for that.


How have your investigations regarding the development and definition of the word ‘boofing’ gone, Clewy? Was the term on the calendar or yearbook? Does it really refer to flatulence or something more sinister? Can we impeach him if we can prove it doesn’t refer to farting?
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:35 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I think it's more likely that they were having 3-ways, but I'm talking about more than just that single comment.


lol fair warning, this is a pretty vulgar post:

bro. here's the thing. I can tell you, back in my Halo-playing, mountain dew drinking, high school days, we used to joke on and on and on about "Eiffel towering" a girl, or "tea bagging" people, or giving a girl an "arabian gas mask", or doing a "dale earnhardt", or a "harry houdini" - all 20 or so of us that regularly hung out - probably said/used those terms in the thousands. How many times do you think any of us actually did ANY of that? You know the answer: ZERO. Zero freaking times did any of us actually do any of the ridiculous crude sexual acts that we, as 14-19 year old boys, regularly joked about every day. Zero. But we joked about it EVERY. DAMN. DAY. It was the type of **** that was so prevalent in our retarded (pardon me, BIBL, but its a very apt description of our mindset) late-teen lexicon. And every. Last. Bit of it. Was bullshit. Its all inside jokes. Its all fake, posturing, BULLSHIT. And EVERYONE talked like that in high school. Everyone. We knew because you'd get on Halo online and talk ****, and every other dude our age is saying the same dumb bullshit. We'd go visit our buddy that lived in a different state, once we got to college, and these dumbasses used the exact same type of bullshit language, and just like us, it was allllll bullshit! You think any of us (who were decent at pulling tail in our own right) had ANY ability to pull off a threesome!? I mean what an astronomical ridiculous notion that any of us were suave enough to pull that **** off, that any girl would do that with us - but we sure as **** talked like we did. And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!? LOL

This isn't some freakin revelation. To all the 20 year old+ guys out there white-knighting about this ****: you've either completely blacked out 5-10 years of your memory, or you're being completely disingenuous, or you were part of some incredible minority of guys that I still have yet to meet in person (who seem to only exist on the internet), who never talked like that in their late teens - or you were an INCREDIBLY sheltered christian kid (maybe 5% of the guys out there?). The rest is fake ass pearl clutching (thanks, whoever said that term a couple pages back, its perfect)

I mean, give me a fuckin break about all this...

I never!
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1000 times
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:40 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Trump goes out and publicly says that Ford made it all up. If he wasn't POTUS, he might have gotten in trouble for that.


Let me ask this, other than Dr. Ford's own allegation (which is missing MANY pertinent details) what makes you think/believe it wasn't made up?

If her allegation is "credible", what does a "non-credible" allegation look like?

I expect everyone wills have different standards as to what they find to be credible. But what are those specific benchmarks we look for in making that determination and which of those apply to Dr. Ford and her allegation against BK?

My issue with Dr. Ford is that NONE of her story can be, or has been corroborated by anyone or by any supporting evidence. We heard claims from her legal team, but none these 'therapist notes' or details around this polygraph were ever turned over to the Senate Judiciary or anyone else. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean after the witnesses Dr. Ford cited were present ALL REFUTED any event took place as described including her friend (and connection to BK) Leyland Keyser stating she didn't even know BK the therapist notes and polygraph would be the 2 most important pieces of circumstantial evidence left, so why not use them to support your allegation?

I found Dr. Ford believable during her testimony, I do think she was likely a victim. But details matter, corroboration matters, evidence matters, even if it's circumstantial. And there is none of that here which supports her allegation.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13859
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Been thanked: 601 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:46 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Trump goes out and publicly says that Ford made it all up. If he wasn't POTUS, he might have gotten in trouble for that.



My issue with Dr. Ford is that NONE of her story can be, or has been corroborated by anyone or by any supporting evidence. We heard claims from her legal team, but none these 'therapist notes' or details around this polygraph were ever turned over to the Senate Judiciary or anyone else. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean after the witnesses Dr. Ford cited were present ALL REFUTED any event took place as described including her friend (and connection to BK) Leyland Keyser stating she didn't even know BK the therapist notes and polygraph would be the 2 most important pieces of circumstantial evidence left, so why not use them to support your allegation?


They were allegedly provided to the FBI which is rumored to be one of the reasons some Dems wants the FBI report released. I can't tell you if it's true, just heard it on the news.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:48 pm

Buc2 wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
lol fair warning, this is a pretty vulgar post:

bro. here's the thing. I can tell you, back in my Halo-playing, mountain dew drinking, high school days, we used to joke on and on and on about "Eiffel towering" a girl, or "tea bagging" people, or giving a girl an "arabian gas mask", or doing a "dale earnhardt", or a "harry houdini" - all 20 or so of us that regularly hung out - probably said/used those terms in the thousands. How many times do you think any of us actually did ANY of that? You know the answer: ZERO. Zero freaking times did any of us actually do any of the ridiculous crude sexual acts that we, as 14-19 year old boys, regularly joked about every day. Zero. But we joked about it EVERY. DAMN. DAY. It was the type of **** that was so prevalent in our retarded (pardon me, BIBL, but its a very apt description of our mindset) late-teen lexicon. And every. Last. Bit of it. Was bullshit. Its all inside jokes. Its all fake, posturing, BULLSHIT. And EVERYONE talked like that in high school. Everyone. We knew because you'd get on Halo online and talk ****, and every other dude our age is saying the same dumb bullshit. We'd go visit our buddy that lived in a different state, once we got to college, and these dumbasses used the exact same type of bullshit language, and just like us, it was allllll bullshit! You think any of us (who were decent at pulling tail in our own right) had ANY ability to pull off a threesome!? I mean what an astronomical ridiculous notion that any of us were suave enough to pull that **** off, that any girl would do that with us - but we sure as **** talked like we did. And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!? LOL

This isn't some freakin revelation. To all the 20 year old+ guys out there white-knighting about this ****: you've either completely blacked out 5-10 years of your memory, or you're being completely disingenuous, or you were part of some incredible minority of guys that I still have yet to meet in person (who seem to only exist on the internet), who never talked like that in their late teens - or you were an INCREDIBLY sheltered christian kid (maybe 5% of the guys out there?). The rest is fake ass pearl clutching (thanks, whoever said that term a couple pages back, its perfect)

I mean, give me a fuckin break about all this...

I never!


well we all know you're a saint, Buc2





a cocaine dealing, DAS-bombing saint
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 423 times
Been thanked: 292 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:50 pm

beardmcdoug wrote: And we talked like we all fucked eachother's mothers too. Did any of us actually **** somebody else's mom!?

I did.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 680 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:53 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I never!


well we all know you're a saint, Buc2


a cocaine dealing, DAS-bombing saint


I agree with your premise beard. I too said many of those things and worse. I've successfully completed some as well, but my point about him lying was not that he had done them or that he was a predator for saying stuff, but the he was withholding the truth about blacking out, what those terms were, the amount he parties, etc. When I mentioned it after the case I was referring to the fact that he did technically lie, but none of it can be really proven.

I understand why he didn't say, "My friends and I would use those terms because they were funny"... to garner, "You think sexually assault is funny". etc. Obviously he's blacked out multiple times, to argue otherwise is incredibly naive (stop dread), but that doesn't mean he committed assault just because he did. Some have an issue with him not being completely truthful in general.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Mountaineer Buc, PrimeMinister, RedLeader, uscbucsfan and 18 guests