Kreepy Kavanaugh

[Trigger_Warning]

who the fuck is Emma Gonzalez and why the fuck shpuld we care what she says?

We should care what she says because she is an outspoken survivor of the Parkland shooting. She is one voice from a generation that is going to turn out at the polls in upcoming elections and force change. You in particular better buckle up for an unpleasant ride.

 

[Que]

Accuser 5 - recants
Accuser 4 - debunked
Accuser 3 - Avenatti's client, excluded from probe due to baselessness?
Accuser 2 - won't return FBI's calls

That just leaves Ford and Kavanaugh.
Since we've analyzed HIS high school yearbook, shouldn't we analyze HERS?

These are the same people that were outraged about words allegedly spoken by Clarence Thomas (to the, at the time, eager, cheerfully reception by Anita Hill) and had no problem at all about Clinton's "private, sexual matters" up to, and including, credible, contemporainiously, Well-corroborated allegations of rape.

They are an absolute joke and are simply worthy of derision. They have no moral standing whatsoever because they have no moral center. It's how they justify engaging in morally despicable behavior when it suits them.

Booker has admitted in writing to doing worse than what Kavenaugh is accused of. Where is the outrage from these same people? Just for fun, a go-fund me page should be set up that pays out to anyone who can come forward with tales of high school misconduct committed by politicians and media personalities. No corroboration necessary.

 

[Que]

We should care what she says because she is an outspoken survivor of the Parkland shooting. She is one voice from a generation that is going to turn out at the polls in upcoming elections and force change. You in particular better buckle up for an unpleasant ride.

Better or worse than the tide minorities and women were going to ensure we never had an evil white Male as President, ever again?

By the way, pussy-grabbing Trump won the evil, white woman vote over rape-enabling Hillary. Only 25% of women fund Ford credible. Not all woman are easily herded sheep.

 

[BBX50]

We should care what she says because she is an outspoken survivor of the Parkland shooting. She is one voice from a generation that is going to turn out at the polls in upcoming elections and force change. You in particular better buckle up for an unpleasant ride.

she BLAMES everyone BUT

the shooter

the police who dod nothing 50 times

Sheriff Israel

The resource officer

She is a LUNATIC

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Always good, to see a bit of truth

September 19, 2017

An article in the National Review declared: “[D]uring a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith.”

Feinstein simply was asking Barrett whether her law review article reflected how she will behave as a judge. At no time, did Feinstein “attack” Barrett for her religious faith or suggest she should be denied confirmation because she is a Catholic.


https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article174058591.html

 

[BBX50]

We should care what she says because she is an outspoken survivor of the Parkland shooting. She is one voice from a generation that is going to turn out at the polls in upcoming elections and force change. You in particular better buckle up for an unpleasant ride.

outspoken about WHAT?

tell me if you can!

 

[BBX50]

A Hill got a $1 million book deal...Ford will get MORE

Go Fund Me account already past $1 million

There will be speaking fees

And

Im sure a movie deal

CUNT LIES....Banks $$$

 

[Que]

outspoken about WHAT?

tell me if you can!

Guns are baa baa baaad. Only the police (like the on-site school resource offucer) should have them!

 

[BBX50]

We should care what she says because she is an outspoken survivor of the Parkland shooting. She is one voice from a generation that is going to turn out at the polls in upcoming elections and force change. You in particular better buckle up for an unpleasant ride.

I axed you a fucking question DIRTBAG

Answer it

OPUTSPOKEN ABOUT WHAT????????????

 

[BBX50]

Guns are baa baa baaad. Only the police (like the on-site school resource offucer) should have them!

I dont think thats it

 

[Ramone45]

It seems like all people really know or care about Judge Kavanaugh is what he allegedly did when he was 17, and his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think they are conveniently glossing over his exemplary life in the interim. He has lead nothing short of an amazing life. Whether you agree with him or not he has had a spectacular career.
I agree with the sentiment that if he was abusive as a youth, that behavior would absolutely carried over into adulthood, and it has not.
His demeanor in front of the committee is completely understandable. He knows that the Democrats goal is to destroy him. Everyone agrees with that. His equanimity is actually amazing.
There is a procedural mechanism in place for dealing with unsubstantiated allegations such as Dr. Ford's. Her anonymity and fragile psyche could have been preserved. But in true Democrat style, they elected to exploit her. They are disgusting. I pray that Judge Kavanaugh maintains his fortitude. The FBI investigation will turn up nothing because there is nothing. The judge will take his place on the Supreme Court. The Democrats will lie in bed knowing how despicable they are and wondering if they really fucked this up. Judge Kavanaugh, being a man of integrity, will perform his duties with distinction.

 

[Kirkrapine]

the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser;

Which is exactly as it should be in a confirmation hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. Kavanaugh's civil rights are not at stake here, only a potential job, in which the country has a far more important interest than he does. A SCOTUS justice, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

 

[Kirkrapine]

It seems like all people really know or care about Judge Kavanaugh is what he allegedly did when he was 17, and his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think they are conveniently glossing over his exemplary life in the interim. He has lead nothing short of an amazing life. Whether you agree with him or not he has had a spectacular career.

Spectacular, perhaps, but far from exemplary. This is a man who pushed the Vince Foster conspiracy theory, to the extent of tormenting Foster's family, and his career on the bench has been no better. David Brooks has his number.

 

[Que]

Always good, to see a bit of truth

September 19, 2017

An article in the National Review declared: “[D]uring a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith.”

Feinstein simply was asking Barrett whether her law review article reflected how she will behave as a judge. At no time, did Feinstein “attack” Barrett for her religious faith or suggest she should be denied confirmation because she is a Catholic.


https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article174058591.html

Oh, well then. She was "simply asking?"

How about quoting Feinstein's actual words, not her apologist's characterization of her actions?

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that — you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

Hie does it feel to be the miles of the left; only capable if posting partisan hacks and incapable of engaging in dialog directly?

What motivates someone with no ability to form and express cogent independent thoughts to exclusively express themselves with articles and memes authored by others?

What Feinstein did was wrong and would be actionable if any employer expressed those reservations about a potential hire, since your team has suddenly decided that these confirmation hearings are job interviews.

 

[Que]

Which is exactly as it should be in a confirmation hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. Kavanaugh's civil rights are not at stake here, only a potential job, in which the country has a far more important interest than he does. A SCOTUS justice, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

You can repeat that nonsense as often as you like it doesn't make it any more true with the telling.

This marvelous new standard for how unfounded allegations are handled in this country is a brand new invention. It's certainly didn't apply to any of the many scandals of the many sexual abusers on the left.

Just for example absolutely no one is taking the porn-lawyer's mentally unstable client's allegations seriously because she's obviously off her rocker and the allegations are obviously preposterous. If that was the one and only accusation you would be still saying the same thing because it suits you.

If this Borking stands, the left, (which has no objective morality and proudly accepts by any means necessary if it furthers what they believe to he the greater good,) will simply find or manufacture charges on every single conservative that comes down the pike.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You can repeat that nonsense as often as you like it doesn't make it any more true with the telling.

Explain how it is false.

This marvelous new standard for how unfounded allegations are handled in this country is a brand new invention. It's certainly didn't apply to any of the many scandals of the many sexual abusers on the left.

The latter concerns only the court of public opinion, which by its nature has no rules of evidence or procedure.

 

[bhurry]

Sixty five women purportedly knew Kavanaugh during his rape-y high school days.

He attended an all-male prep school.

How many women did you know in school? Rosy Palm

 

[Que]

Explain how it is false.



The latter concerns only the court of public opinion, which by its nature has no rules of evidence or procedure.

Social congress absolutely does have rules. You know what they are. Just because you're willing to selectively violate them to further your own personal preferences does not mean that the rules that you proposed to violate don't exist.

Just as you noticed that you could get away with consistently violating Forum rules but you figured it didn't matter because you assumed that 'their selective enforcement would provide you immunity. The fact that you got away with it consistently for a very long time didn't mean the rules didn't exist it just meant that you as is typical for people like you felt the rules did not apply to you.

That's what separates people of your ilk with people who actually do have moral fiber. Your feelings in this regard is what makes you worthy of derision as a human being.

 

[Saint Peter]

His demeanor in front of the committee is completely understandable.



...

Sorry but I do not think that behaving like a child in front of the committee is understandable. It is a job interview for the top court.

I would not hire a kid to mow my yard that acted like that.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Social congress absolutely does have rules. You know what they are. Just because you're willing to selectively violate them to further your own personal preferences does not mean that the rules that you proposed to violate don't exist.

Just as you noticed that you could get away with consistently violating Forum rules but you figured it didn't matter because you assumed that 'their selective enforcement would provide you immunity. The fact that you got away with it consistently for a very long time didn't mean the rules didn't exist it just meant that you as is typical for people like you felt the rules did not apply to you.

That's what separates people of your elk with people who actually do have moral fiber. Your feelings in this regard is what makes you worthy of derision as a human being.

What I say is perfectly true, and you know it: In a confirmation hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial, the burden of proof should be on the accused, not the accuser. Kavanaugh's civil rights are not at stake here, only a potential job, in which the country has a far more important interest than he does. A SCOTUS justice, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

 

[cowslinger64]

Social congress absolutely does have rules. You know what they are. Just because you're willing to selectively violate them to further your own personal preferences does not mean that the rules that you proposed to violate don't exist.

Just as you noticed that you could get away with consistently violating Forum rules but you figured it didn't matter because you assumed that 'their selective enforcement would provide you immunity. The fact that you got away with it consistently for a very long time didn't mean the rules didn't exist it just meant that you as is typical for people like you felt the rules did not apply to you.

That's what separates people of your elk with people who actually do have moral fiber. Your feelings in this regard is what makes you worthy of derision as a human being.

More stoooopid from Mr. Ain't Got Two Nickels To Rub Together...that's quite a few mistakes today, Einstein.

 

[BBX50]

Always good, to see a bit of truth

September 19, 2017

An article in the National Review declared: “[D]uring a confirmation hearing for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein attacked the nominee for her Roman Catholic faith.”

Feinstein simply was asking Barrett whether her law review article reflected how she will behave as a judge. At no time, did Feinstein “attack” Barrett for her religious faith or suggest she should be denied confirmation because she is a Catholic.


https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article174058591.html

BS

Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?

During a recent hearing, Democratic senators pushed an appellate-court nominee to explain how her religious beliefs would affect her legal decisions.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/catholics-senate-amy-barrett/539124/

they would NEVER ask a MUSLIM that

 

[doowdniw]

Details? Please elaborate

What details would you like?

When: late 70s
Where: A lake cottage
Who: yeah, like I'm going to name names.
One girl and multiple guys, all fairly well blotto.

 

[BBX50]

Which is exactly as it should be in a confirmation hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. Kavanaugh's civil rights are not at stake here, only a potential job, in which the country has a far more important interest than he does. A SCOTUS justice, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion.

he is

the LOONZ lie

there is NOT ONE IOTA of evidence to what they say

but much to show THEY LIE

 

[von_Bismarck]

Social congress absolutely does have rules. You know what they are. Just because you're willing to selectively violate them to further your own personal preferences does not mean that the rules that you proposed to violate don't exist.

Just as you noticed that you could get away with consistently violating Forum rules but you figured it didn't matter because you assumed that 'their selective enforcement would provide you immunity. The fact that you got away with it consistently for a very long time didn't mean the rules didn't exist it just meant that you as is typical for people like you felt the rules did not apply to you.

That's what separates people of your elk with people who actually do have moral fiber. Your feelings in this regard is what makes you worthy of derision as a human being.

Queef, as the pathetic cuckold he is, believes he is "worthy of derision as a human being." Hence, the above is just another case of #ProjectionAgain.