Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Mojo Hand said:

You can't get into the FBI without passing a lie detector test on mundane issues like whether you've used drugs before.  Why shouldn't it be used for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? 

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Are you under the impression that the rules of evidence apply here?

That's adorable.

No, I think the Democrats will make it as big of a circus as they possibly can. If she accepts the invite of course. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

They are also accountable to voters.

Posted

GOP EMERGENCY MID-TERM STRATEGY 

1. Withdraw Kavanaugh

2. Nominate Hillary

3. Put her on public trial in the Senate during confirmation

4.  Force democrats to vote for her confirmation while GOP votes against 

5. Profit.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So are we going to get testimony from this Mark Judge guy? 

Yeah.  Here's what he'll say:

Oh, I remember that!  That was the party at Steve's house.  Jim and Joe were there too.  The four of us used to get smashed together all the time.  And Steve told her his name was Brett.  Any time Steve was up to no good, or even ordering food he'd say his name was Brett because Brett was such a goody two shoes.  ... Yeah, Steve did that.  I was there.

Posted

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

Yes. It should absolutely disqualify you from a seat on the Supreme Court.

The consolation prize is a seven figure partnership in a white shoe law firm.

Whatever will Brett Kavanaugh do?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

the-rise-of-matthew-mcconaughey-09-a-tim

Now imagine that the 17 year old was black.

Posted

The Central Park Five were ages 14-16 at the time of their arrests.   They have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which conclusively pointed to another person, who has confessed.   Trump still claims that they are guilty. 

Posted
50 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

The issue to me is the accusation alone is sufficient alone for some of y’all to sink his nomination.

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise.

  • Like 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not going to go after you, Jimmy. I know how you like to get the moderators involved. 

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise. 

Yep, but it's part of their general defense of this guy.

Not as persuasive as Armybrat's "but Hillary" argument, but still...

Posted
1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possibe, but I’m going to need more to tarnish a man’s reputation and career. 

Lol. Whatever. There could be a video of it, Brett would deny its authentic calling it fake news, and then you’de want more to “tarnish a man’s reputation and career” 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Yes, I need more evidence. 

You realize the politics of this is going to take care of it for you, right?

I wonder who they'll send up next.

Edited by David Dennison
Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

I’m not getting into those details, suffice it to say that you’re more sensitive than you portray yourself. And that’s ok. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Lol. Whatever. There could be a video of it, Brett would deny its authentic calling it fake news, and then you’de want more to “tarnish a man’s reputation and career” 

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
Just now, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

Posted
1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

That’s all it takes? What a time to be alive. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

What, to you, would constitute "proof"?

Good question, there’s a reason there’s a statute of limitations. Our memories serve us terribly. 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

Circumstantial at best. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nobody I can recall has said that, but you keep telling yourself otherwise.

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

Posted
Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

The standard of proof lies with each individual senator. This is a political arena, not a court of law.

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Like I said. Nothing will ever convince you since that’s your job. 

Sorry, that’s just not very convincing.

I see you’re negging all my posts, you’re such a crybaby. I love it. 

Edited by Chrispy
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

She also told her therapist six years ago. 

That's important.

  • Like 1
Posted

She obviously knew Trump would later become president after Mitt Romney predictably lost in 2012.  And of course she knew Trump would nominate that same guy for the supreme court.  Women are all the same.  Crafty and scheming.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

No.

lol. Sorry I haven't read the last 10 pages. Just catching up. blah blah blah.

Posted

If the republicans don’t nominate Brett Kavanaugh the dems will get there blue wave. If Ted Cruz doesn’t support Brett Kavanaugh, Beto might win the seat.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

So, you didn't have time to read about the story because you were handing out free candy to little boys near the schoolyard. Is that correct?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

No, we're saying that courtroom standards of proof are irrelevant.   That doesn't mean the allegations and denials shouldn't be evaluated for credibility by each Senator.   And they don't need to be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, to conclude that there is enough merit to decide not to give him the job.   Because this is essentially just a high-profile job interview, and you don't need to have a court judgment to reject a job applicant who has some question marks. 



×
×
  • Create New...