patrick.net

doik says

That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal.

And statements like this really help us take you seriously.
Not.

Quigley says

Gee, I must have missed the part when the GOP used unsubstantiated allegations to character assassinate Merrick Garland. Either that or you come from an alternate timeline.

When have the Republicans EVER smeared a Democrat Supreme Court nominee like the Democrats have done to Bork, Clarence Thomas and now Kavanaugh?

Even crazy Libs like Ruth Bader Ginsberg sale right through the process. Just like Kagan and Sotomayer did a few years ago.

Just like the Democrats regretting changing the filibuster rules, I think they are going to regret this latest EMO spasm the next time the Republicans are in the minority.

WookieMan says

When was he convicted of a felony? I'm also not sure when people started believing that EVERYONE was pure and did not do any wrong at ANY time in their lives. Everyone has skeletons in their closet whether they want to admit it or not.

Another double standard. Kevin Spacey was not convicted. Cosby was only convicted of one of many of his crimes. Hell, OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder. Do you consider him innocent?

Furthermore, the standard for accepting a Supreme Court nominee is much higher than the standard for not convicting a person. To err on the side of safety means that you don't convict a person until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. To err on the side of safety also means that if there is any reasonable doubt that a person is a criminal, you DO NOT put him on the Supreme Court. Not being put in a prison without a guilty conviction by a trial of your peers is a right. Holding a Supreme Court position is a privilege. It's nonsensical to equate the two.

Quigley says

And statements like this really help us take you seriously.

You only say that because the person I'm opposing is someone you want on the Supreme Court. If he were a left-leaning Democrat, you'd be calling for him to be locked up. That's the hypocrisy I'm pointing out.

I don't give a shit about his politics. He's a criminal and that disqualifies him from being a Supreme Court justice, plain and simple. It makes no more sense to put him in that position than to put Kevin Spacey there.

And to say that the objections I stated are ridiculous when they are exactly what most of the nation is stating including any news organization that isn't outright propaganda just demonstrates how tribal you are. It's all about tribes, not about integrity or consistent principles. The hypocrisy is obvious and unnecessary. Is there really absolutely no conservative judge that hasn't committed felonies? There's literally no one else to choose? You must have a far worse perception of conservatives than I do. I could swing a dead cat and hit at least several conservative judges who aren't criminals. Is this really the standard you want your tribe to be known for?

Quigley says

Gee, I must have missed the part when the GOP used unsubstantiated allegations to character assassinate Merrick Garland. Either that or you come from an alternate timeline.

Option three: you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said to grasp at straws. The Republicans clearly used whatever tactics were available to delay the Obama nomination for the sole purpose of having a chance to appoint their own candidate after an election. To say otherwise is a lie.

If you think this is a fair tactic, then fine. If you think it is not, then fine. But if you think it's ok for one side but not the other, then you are a hypocrite.

The only difference between now and then is that there is actually legitimate reasons to prevent Kavaunah from being appointed. That difference doesn't affect that the Democrats are acting in bad faith, but quite frankly, I'm more concerned about what is right than why they are doing it. Yes, their side is purely politically motivated. So are you. You just don't have the balls to admit it. This nomination and the opposition are all about politics. That does not change the fact that a person who commits felonies should not be a Supreme Court justice. If you had any respect for law, this would not be at all controversial to you. It's a pretty low bar to say that the highest court in our country shouldn't be populated with literal criminals.

doik says

Another double standard. Kevin Spacey was not convicted. Cosby was only convicted of one of many of his crimes. Hell, OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder. Do you consider him innocent?

OJ went through a trial and was exonerated. That's the jury's decision, so not sure why he's being brought up. My opinion on the trial doesn't matter at this point. He got convicted of doing other dumb shit down the road. Cosby got his day in court as well and lost. Too bad, don't do dumb shit.

What has Kav. been convicted of? You said he was a felon. Spacey by his own admission played it off as if it could have happened. Kav. is denying. There's a difference and the stakes are vastly different for these two characters. Spacey will likely not act again and will lose at least 7-8 figures until he dies and didn't flat out deny what happened (he knows it did). Kav. could just go private or corporate and make SUBSTANTIALLY more money, 7-8 figures versus a paltry SC Justice salary (and admit he did wrong). He doesn't NEED to be a SC Justice, which is why I kind of believe him.

And I could give zero shits about if he actually gets appointed or not. These accusations about assault are causing real problems for REAL victims of assault though. That should be more concerning to everyone. It's the reason chicks (or in the rare circumstance dudes) won't come forward after being assaulted. This dog and pony show is fucking with millions of people over dumb ass politics.

doik says

If you think this is a fair tactic, then fine. If you think it is not, then fine. But if you think it's ok for one side but not the other, then you are a hypocrite.

The Republicans didn't smear Garland as a fucking rapist by dragging out 40 year old un-provable charges from High School.

All the Republicans did was do what Joe Biden recommended back in 1992.www.youtube.com/embed/qPAzVNmOYgM

WookieMan says

I don't have pony

Lol! A pony. #Outsiders #Typo

WookieMan says

OJ went through a trial and was exonerated. That's the jury's decision, so not sure why he's being brought up

I brought it up because it illustrates the hypocrisy. Despite the acquittal, every conservative on patnet called O.J. guilty, and rightfully so, yet they give their own tribal leaders a pass on crimes.

WookieMan says

What has Kav. been convicted of?

I've already address this.

doik says

Kevin Spacey is an actor, the most unimportant job in the world. Yet he lost his job in a smash hit TV series and his entire career. Kavaunah is a criminal who would have tremendous legal power, and that is highly relevant to the position. For anyone to defend Kavaunah while attacking Clinton, Cosby, or Spacey is pure hypocrisy. Putting a felon on the Supreme Court is the worst thing you could do. What ever happened to valuing law and order?

doik says

Furthermore, the standard for accepting a Supreme Court nominee is much higher than the standard for not convicting a person. To err on the side of safety means that you don't convict a person until proven guilty in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. To err on the side of safety also means that if there is any reasonable doubt that a person is a criminal, you DO NOT put him on the Supreme Court. Not being put in a prison without a guilty conviction by a trial of your peers is a right. Holding a Supreme Court position is a privilege. It's nonsensical to equate the two.

The bar for a Supreme Court appointment isn't "well, unless he's been convicted, he's good." Hell, that's not even the bar for security clearance.

WookieMan says

And I could give zero shits about if he actually gets appointed or not.

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

I'm for free speech, but I'm also for honest speech. The later is lacking in our society today and this thread demonstrates that painfully.

socal2 says

The Republicans didn't smear Garland as a fucking rapist by dragging out 40 year old un-provable charges from High School.

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault, and if he were Obama's nominee you would be attacking him for it. This is painfully obvious.

Nonetheless, the particularities of the tactic are irrelevant. What matters is that the Republicans did the exact same thing last time that the Democrats are doing this time, namely delay an appointment so that after an election a different appointment can be made. Are you really trying to convince people that you are not entirely politically motivated in this issue?

doik says

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault

Is that a fact, nope.

LeonDurham says

By fishing, you mean investigating, right?

No, I mean fishing.

Investigation: Following up on a complaint/lead
Fishing: Actively hunting for complaints/leads

Show me the man... and I'll show you the crime...

LeonDurham says

All anyone is demanding is an investigation. That's how things should work.

And they won't get it, unless they can provide some evidence with which to begin one.

Mere accusations from 30+ years ago, offered with no evidence, can and should be dismissed without consideration.

Otherwise anybody can make up bullshit and delay nomination processes and waste taxpayer money pursuing political chimeras.

doik says

Kavaunah has committed sexual assault, and if he were Obama's nominee you would be attacking him for it. This is painfully obvious.

See - it is this over the top craziness (and unfairness) like this which is driving me (who didn't vote for Trump) to enthusiastically vote for Trump and every Republican possible.

Democrats have gone flat out crazy. They need to be kept as far away from power as possible.

doik says

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

Let me get this straight:

Somebody comes out 35+ years after an event, claiming something has happened. Their own "Lifetime Friends" say they've never heard this account, and their own Therapist notes a very different account involving 4 boys and a gangrape. There is no evidence at all confirming this story, not even a friend's testimony. Therefore, we need to postpone confirmation and have an FBI Investigation.

No.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

doik says

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for. This includes people on patnet. There is nothing you can write on patnet that will have any influence on national issues. The only thing you can do is have the integrity to not be a hypocrite.

Let me get this straight:

Somebody comes out 35+ years after an event, claiming something has happened. Their own "Lifetime Friends" say they've never heard this account, and their own Therapist notes a very different account involving 4 boys and a gangrape. There is no evidence at all confirming this story, not even a friend's testimony. Therefore, we need to postpone confirmation and have an FBI Investigation.

No.

This is the definition of insanity and a banana republic that lost all its jurisprudence. I hope he gets confirmed swiftly and this charade will fade into the archives of dark memories of this nation.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Investigation: Following up on a complaint/lead

Then you agree it was investigating.

They got a complaint. Typically these type of criminals are repeat offenders so as part of the investigation, Kavanaugh's behavior at other similar events was investigated. That is investigation 101.

LeonDurham says

They got a complaint. Typically these type of criminals are repeat offenders so as part of the investigation, Kavanaugh's behavior at other similar events was investigated. That is investigation 101.

Not at all. The Activists went fishing for at least one ("Civil Rights Lawyer"), and probably the other. Having to spend days in both cases "Going over your memory to decide if it's Kavanaugh" is already worrisome.

There is no basis for an investigation because of the age of the complaint and the surfeit of any verifiable facts.

Until Ford can come up with some verifiable facts, there's nothing to investigate. It looks more like Projection and Distortion of memory involving distant events, and putting any weirdness on Kavanaugh as the "current symbol" of Women's Oppression.

Hysteria ;)

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Not at all. The Activists went fishing for at least one, and probably the other.

There is no basis for an investigation because of the age of the complaint and the surfeit of any verifiable facts.

Until Ford can come up with some verifiable facts, there's nothing to investigate.

lol--so now it's they shouldn't have investigated at all? Make up your mind.

So what is the time at which it should no longer be investigated? Was Weinstein in the clear? Franken?

LeonDurham says

lol--so now it's they shouldn't have investigated at all? Make up your mind.

Some claims are so old, and so unverifiable, they shouldn't be investigated.

"35 years ago, I think you were the drunk guy who flashed his dick at me, after my department was visited by a civil rights attorney and "activist" looking for Kavanaugh stories. Then I thought about it for several days and think it mighta coulda have been Kavanaugh."

Let them bring a civil suit if they think they can prove anything.

LeonDurham says

So what is the time at which it should no longer be investigated? Was Weinstein in the clear? Franken?

Both Weinstein and Franken events happened within the past few years, not in high school or college, among adults, during the commission of their respective jobs.

Kavanaugh is being accused of things that happened 35 years ago, for which there is pretty much only the flawed memory of the accuser, who claims not to remember key details or anything that could possibly be verified.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Both Weinstein and Franken events happened within the past few years, not in high school or college, among adults, during the commission of their respective jobs.

Kavanaugh is being accused of things that happened 35 years ago, for which there is pretty much only the flawed memory of the accuser, who claims not to remember key details or anything that could possibly be verified.

So what's the statute of limitations on investigating. 10 years? 20 years?

LeonDurham says

So what's the statute of limitations on investigating. 10 years? 20 years?

There is no statute on limitations for investigating jack shit.

However, let me know authorities who will open a case into a 35-year old story of a drunk guy groping somebody or flashing his dick at a college/HS party, based wholly on one person's claims.

LOL.

RC2006 says

Is that a fact, nope.

You refuse to believe it only because of your tribal politics. If he played for the other team, you'd be calling for his arrest.

When it comes to something as important as an appointment to the highest court in the land, the vetting process should be thorough and any doubt should disqualify. There are over 300 million Americans. Are you really incapable of finding a conservative judge who supports your politics but isn't morally and legally doubtful? Are your standards really that low that anyone qualifies just as long as they have your politics?

It should not be hard to find a conservative judge who would pass vetting. Conservatives aren't that evil that there isn't a single one who doesn't have a questionable past. It should be easy to vet a judge with conservative politics. The fact that you are defending this nomination with such vigor illustrates a distinct lack of confidence in your tribe. It says you don't think you can do better.

doik says

He's going to get appointed. That's not my point. My point is that people need to stop being tribal hypocrites and hold government officials to the same standards regardless of which team they play for.

Like I said, no pony for me. Both parties can fuck themselves. No one generally has or will be held accountable in government office (yes, it does happen). It would be like me trying get Bill down at the sewer treatment plant fired because I "heard" something bad. I don't work there and have little to no access. Very difficult to get anything accomplished as far as making change (FOIA shmOIA before that gets brought up). Government officials have built a fortress around their position. There's a reason it costs probably 8 figures or more now to become a senator of some poe dunk state.

doik says

I brought it up because it illustrates the hypocrisy. Despite the acquittal, every conservative on patnet called O.J. guilty, and rightfully so, yet they give their own tribal leaders a pass on crimes.

Who cares what any conservative says here or anywhere? It's all just opinion. Only the accuser and judge himself know what's true or false. We will never come to a conclusion on this. This is the problem with either party, it's all made up bullshit 90% of the time so they can keep a cush job, with great benefits. D's are trying to act tough, and very likely are complicit in these accusations and the R's will want to get their guy in. It's all a game. This nomination will have zero impact on 9 out of 10 of us.

I frankly don't understand why there's an issue here. We all know how this plays out. Kav. gets in or the next nominee is also a rapist all a sudden. I don't see the Dems winning enough to block this after the election, so this is just a waste of fucking time.

doik says

The fact that you are defending this nomination with such vigor illustrates a distinct lack of confidence in your tribe. It says you don't think you can do better.

The disgraceful Democrats will smear any CONSERVATIVE they nominate like they did with Bork and Thomas.

The Democrats must be taught a lesson that this kind of shit won't be tolerated.

WookieMan says

I frankly don't understand why there's an issue here. We all know how this plays out. Kav. gets in or the next nominee is also a rapist all a sudden. I don't see the Dems winning enough to block this after the election, so this is just a waste of fucking time.

@WookieMan. You don't understand, we just have to "believe the woman". If they nominate him, without postponing the nomination and start an FBI Investigation right now, Republicans Hate Women. If they do start an investigation, Republicans had to be shamed into it, so they hate Women. But if they have her testify, they're bullying her and hate women, too!

It’s clear that Republicans have learned nothing over the last 27 years. Bullying a survivor of attempted rape in order to confirm a nominee—particularly at a time when she’s receiving death threats—is an extreme abuse of power. https://t.co/XoAcqEQF1a— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 21, 2018

Looks like they dragged too many hundred dollar bills through Academic Research Parks.

socal2 says

The disgraceful Democrats will smear any CONSERVATIVE they nominate like they did with Bork and Thomas.

The Democrats must be taught a lesson that this kind of shit won't be tolerated.

Neil Gorsuch anyone?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

However, let me know authorities who will open a case into a 35-year old story of a drunk guy groping somebody or flashing his dick at a college/HS party, based wholly on one person's claims.

LOL.

Sure thing.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/cedf1f62-2993-3c29-8c28-0191c8eb9713/kavanaugh-may-face-4th.html

“We are prepared to investigate if the victim wants to report to us,” the Montgomery County police chief told the paper, “and we can determine [if] it occurred in the county.”

The answer to your question is the Montgomery County police.

doik says

You refuse to believe it only because of your tribal politics. If he played for the other team, you'd be calling for his arrest.

Absolutely not. I don't care what team a person is on (I would defend a Dem/lefty as well if accused like this), neither should anybody when in comes to 'in dubio pro reo' and defending jurisprudence as an absolute necessity to freedom and personal liberty, esp. when there is zero evidence. In fact if there will be any evidence proving this didn't happen punishment should be the same for Ford as a man would get for sexual assault. The reason these unsubstantiated claims are being made every day is because women have no skin in the game and can lie freely. Likely though there won't be evidence on either side so this case should just be dropped and K. confirmed.

mell says

The reason these unsubstantiated claims are being made every day is because women have no skin in the game and can lie freely.

This is the thing. Men can't be molested or raped. Only women. If a man were to claim this same thing, he'd likely be shunned by women forever. A woman does it and it's the fucking truth no matter what.

There are bad dudes out there for sure. But chicks fuck around and play games all the time. They literally can destroy someone's life with ZERO consequences. I'm just happy I'm with a non-nut job one.

I am of the opinion, which has been stated here now and on multiple threads, that if a accusation is proven false, the woman should be thrown in jail for the equivalent time for the accusing event. So if rape gets 5 years and it's provable the chick was lying, she gets 5. This actually would help the real victims of sexual assault more then anything. The false accusations hurt the actual women that are actually assaulted.

If only she were a man accusing a Catholic priest it would be serious news

personal

WookieMan says

mell says

The reason these unsubstantiated claims are being made every day is because women have no skin in the game and can lie freely.

This is the thing. Men can't be molested or raped. Only women. If a man were to claim this same thing, he'd likely be shunned by women forever. A woman does it and it's the fucking truth no matter what.

There are bad dudes out there for sure. But chicks fuck around and play games all the time. They literally can destroy someone's life with ZERO consequences. I'm just happy I'm with a non-nut job one.

I am of the opinion, which has been stated here now and on multiple threads, that if a accusation is proven false, the woman should be thrown in jail for the equivalent time for the accusing event. So if rape gets 5 years and it's provable the chick was lying, she gets 5. This actually would help the real victims of sexual assault more the...

Agreed. Also more men than women are raped in the US every day, the prison population is often forgotten. More men are victims of heinous crimes each day than women, those are the forgotten victims.

personal

personal

mell says

Agreed. Also more men than women are raped in the US every day, the prison population is often forgotten. More men are victims of heinous crimes each day than women, those are the forgotten victims.

While I'd actually think you're right statistically, I'd tap the brakes on that one. Dudes rightly convicted getting jacked in prison really doesn't bother me. The laws are pretty simple to follow and they didn't need to be there in the first place. Not the most polite point of view, but again, follow basic laws that help all of us humans live together.

Not sure if there are NHL fans here, but Patrick Kane with the Blackhawks went through this shit. He gets paid well, but his endorsement money evaporated overnight when some bitch lied and then mom tried to place fake evidence. He'll be fine and do well the rest of his life, but the false accusation cost him millions. The accuser, nothing. Not right.

LeonDurham says

“We are prepared to investigate if the victim wants to report to us,” the MontgomeryCounty police chief told the paper, “and we can determine [if] it occurred in the county.”

The answer to your question is the Montgomery County police.

LOL.

Of course, now that's it's a National Democratic Issue

Montgomery County, MD legislature doesn't have a single republican, and hasn't had a single one since 2006.


nor has it elected a Republican Executive since before The Warriors came out.

www.youtube.com/embed/NwwY9y6O3hw

I think we know the police chief is responsive to his bosses.

Had Blasey-Ford asked the Police to investigate this ancient complaint before, I'm damned sure they would have said "No".

However, I invite her to pursue the proper avenue and stop being a stooge to stop a nomination. We're not buying the BS anymore.

Democrats believe Porky's, Animal House, and Revenge of the Nerds are Misogynist Movies and anybody who attempts any of the shennanigans therein is worse than Hitler and at the very least forever disqualified from Public Office.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Revenge of the Nerds

I used to like this movie, but yeeaahhh Lewis basically rapes Betty at the end of the movie. Kinda gross

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Animal House

Was thinking about this movie too... Isn't Bluto a peeping Tom? Doesn't pinko almost rape a 13 year old girl?

And in revenge of the nerds don't they also install a peep camera into a sorority house?

But nah, anyone who holds these movies up as exemplars and 'attempts any of the shenanigans therein' is totally a quality dude, amirite?

Check out this old clip of Slow Joe Biden pontificating during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

He claims FBI reports are worthless because it is just a he said, she said. Apparently slow Joe wasn't happy that the FBI investigators reported that Anita Hill contradicted herself and was dishonest and they couldn't confirm any of her claims with anyone else.

To Joe's credit, he does say that presumption of innocence is with Clarence Thomas.
www.youtube.com/embed/dMV14URY6oE