Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

Yesterday a very Liberal friend of mine responded to a since deleted post of mine on Facebook. I mentioned how Gorsuch was not treated like Kavanaugh and was wondering why the difference. She came in saying Gorsuch must not have done anything as vile as Kavanaugh (an absolute statement of fact on her part). She then said that white men always get away with things. I responded that nobody knows what happened and that I thought she was emotionally impaired evidenced by the white man comment. Then I deleted the whole thing. I just didn't want to argue about it on Facebook. She hasn't deleted me as a friend so it's possible she didn't read my response.
 
UTChE96 said:
I thought the questions were laughable. The answers seemed believable to me. At least, I have no reason to not believe the answers. Is there some urban dictionary for 80s references?
Click to expand...
Check out Urbandictionary.com. You'll see what I mean.
 
thank you Gar
So it is just a more detailed menage au troi. I wonder if there is a phrase for 2 women and 1 man.
I am guessing those teen age boys talked big games but to actually experience it? Please
 
bystander said:
Yesterday a very Liberal friend of mine responded to a since deleted post of mine on Facebook. I mentioned how Gorsuch was not treated like Kavanaugh and was wondering why the difference. She came in saying Gorsuch must not have done anything as vile as Kavanaugh (an absolute statement of fact on her part). She then said that white men always get away with things. I responded that nobody knows what happened and that I thought she was emotionally impaired evidenced by the white man comment. Then I deleted the whole thing. I just didn't want to argue about it on Facebook. She hasn't deleted me as a friend so it's possible she didn't read my response.
Click to expand...
The answer, of course, is he has done nothing vile. He is the potential majority swing Conservative on the Supreme Court. That is what they consider vile.

This entire thing boils down to that as the hypocrite Dems proclaim how partisan and political the Republicans are wanting to have the majority. As Lindsey Graham basically said, suck it up, you lost and that has consequences.
 
horninchicago said:
The answer, of course, is he has done nothing vile.
Click to expand...

For most of the protesters, his existence is what is vile. He's white, well-off, has a position of power, and went to an ivy league school. He was guilty and oppressive and violent before a single accusation ever came forth.

The irony is that the majority of people who fit that description are at best left-leaning, and as often as not full-on progressive.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
For most of the protesters, his existence is what is vile. He's white, well-off, has a position of power, and went to an ivy league school. He was guilty and oppressive and violent before a single accusation ever came forth.

The irony is that the majority of people who fit that description are at best left-leaning, and as often as not full-on progressive.
Click to expand...
Right, and while I do not believe the allegation(s) against Kavanaugh, if it was true and happened in high school, he was not in a position of power like, say, Bill Clinton when he raped and/or harassed Paula Jones and the others while holding public office.
 
SH?
Seattle Husker said:
Bent over backwards?
It strains credibility to on one hand claim R leaders "bent over backwards" while the facts are that leaders were on record claiming they were planning their vote which effectively meant it didn't matter what either party stated in that hearing. They also fought any non-partisan investigation.
Click to expand...
Please provide a credible link for your assertion.
Yes they were on record planning the vote but not how each was voting. The Dems all said they were voting no before anything was said but there were some GOP senators who were undecided.
Did you pay any attention to Grassley etc who repeated over and over that if DiFI had come forward weeks ago there is a mechanism in place to conduct investigations and respect the privacy of anyone including whistle blowers.And they wanted to investigate. WHO prevented that?
BTW did you see the ABA did not in fact put out a statement calling for a delay until the FBI investigation?
 
Last edited:
Sangre Naranjada said:
Promise me a book deal and speaking fees equal to only 25% of what Ford is going to get, and a gofundme page at half her price, and I'll find one.
Click to expand...

Her financial gain out of this is disturbing to me. I have a friend from high school who is on a raw nerve because she was raped in high school by a guy I knew very well. We've been talking about it offline. She's not getting paid and won't be. Her rapist (and I mean penetration; that's what she is telling me) is a nobody these days who thinks he's a somebody because of his high school glory days which is pathetic because he was a star player on a 1-9 class 2A team. She knows all the details but has not told them all to me. It's a sensitive conversation. I don't know why she didn't tell her Father (apparently he was a major hard-***; she had to move out her senior year; lot's of complications). I've known about it for a few years.

So she lives with it and has no book deal to make it all better. But that doesn't mean Ford's story is true or not. It's just a story that I'm involved with at the moment.
 
Garmel said:
Check out Urbandictionary.com. You'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...
It was a slang expression used over three decades ago long before urbandictionary even existed. Maybe some folks use the expression to refer to a 3 way now but its entirely possible that a rarely used slang expression could have meant a drinking game over three decades ago.
 
So the Accuser may have lied about her credentials? Shocked I am
"Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.
After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”
The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.
Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.
What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an “Affiliate” in the department, with the words “research psychologist” removed along with Ford’s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford’s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight."
Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury
Blumenthal approves of her lying about her credentials.
 
Horn6721 said:
By
So sorry
Glad you are there for her
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's tough. She doesn't like the doubting of Ford's story but she's not a Liberal either. So you know, just being there is the way to go. She gets the politics and that women lie. It has given me a real life view.
 
Last edited:
Hope this is true


DoTUarcU0AE7ETz.jpg
 
And there is at least one more --

Dabney Friedrich, who dated Judge Kavanaugh in 1998, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, denying a claim from someone in Colorado who said Kavanaugh shoved Friedrich against a wall. She called the allegation -- "offensive and absurd."

Leftists will lie about anything. Any means to their end.
 
Debbie Ramirez and her attorneys have refused 7 separate requests for cooperation from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Go figure
 
So there was a conference call Friday evening (Sept. 21) among the Kavanaugh-haters involving the "Center for Popular Democracy" which is at least partially funded by George Soros. Their activists were told to "target Jeff Flake." They claimed they "had a plan" to "push it [the vote] out." The call ended with chants of "WE WILL WIN!"

This is what lead to that elevator confrontation between Flake and a couple of Soros-funded female protesters which was filmed and which led to Flake going wobbly and being shamed in into calling for a Kavanaugh FBI investigation.

Now Flake is out there in front of a left wing crowd saying “feel free to join me in an elevator anytime” to wild cheers by the lefties

 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
So there was a conference call Friday evening (Sept. 21) among the Kavanaugh-haters involving the "Center for Popular Democracy" which is at least partially funded by George Soros. Their activists were told to "target Jeff Flake." They claimed they "had a plan" to "push it [the vote] out." The call ended with chants of "WE WILL WIN!"

This is what lead to that elevator confrontation between Flake and a couple of Soros-funded female protesters which was filmed and which led to Flake going wobbly and being shamed in into calling for a Kavanaugh FBI investigation.

Now Flake is out there in front of a left wing crowd saying “feel free to join me in an elevator anytime” to wild cheers by the lefties

Click to expand...


Global citizens? Wow. If the rumors of him planning to challenge Trump in the primary in 2020 were true, this will pretty much ruin that effort.
 
@Horn6721 If my memory serves me correctly, devil's triangle is a drinking game like quarters. That was the testimony that Kavanaugh gave on Thursday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top