patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,303 comments by 15,059 users - AmericanKulak, FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden, Maga_Chaos_Monkey, mell, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 203 Next » Last » Search these comments
41
doik
2018 Sep 24, 8:30am
Tenpoundbass says
Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail for a very long time. That does not excuse the bad behavior of people on your team.
Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail for a very long time. That does not excuse the bad behavior of people on your team.
42
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:31am
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:31am
Quigley says
What is constantly registering new names a sign of?
doik saysKavaunah is a sexual deviant w
And you lost me. Rushing to judge is a sign of the mentally incompetent.
What is constantly registering new names a sign of?
43
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:32am
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:32am
doik says
What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?
Tenpoundbass says
Anyone who does that should be thrown in jail for a very long time. That does not excuse the bad behavior of people on your team.
What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?
44
doik
2018 Sep 24, 8:33am
CovfefeButDeadly says
The Republican play book.
What is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?
The Republican play book.
45
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:35am
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:35am
doik says
No. Rules for Radicals. The Democrat playbook.
CovfefeButDeadly saysWhat is it called when one side makes up several fake incidents in an attempt to postpone a Supreme Court nomination?
The Republican play book.
No. Rules for Radicals. The Democrat playbook.
46
doik
2018 Sep 24, 8:37am
Both parties are corrupt, but anyone who says that the Democrats aren't doing exactly what the Republicans did during Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a hypocrite. It's painfully obvious that its the exact same tactic. And since the Republicans literally invented this tactic, it's their play book.
47
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:38am
FuckTheMainstreamMedia
2018 Sep 24, 8:38am
doik says
Without other commentary, Monica Lewinsky did in fact suck on Bill Clinton’s cock in the White House and Bill Clinton factually ejaculated on Monica Lewinskys dress.
At least three women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape. He was asked about it by the msm literally once.
OTOH, Brett Cavanaugh has been credibly accused by literally no one.
I miss the 90s. You know, the decade when Republicans were in a hissy fit about consensual sex acts between a president and fat slut instead of defending rapey acts of a Supreme Court nominee. Oh wait, Clarence Thomas.
The party of family values sure seems willing to compromise those values when inconvenient.
Without other commentary, Monica Lewinsky did in fact suck on Bill Clinton’s cock in the White House and Bill Clinton factually ejaculated on Monica Lewinskys dress.
At least three women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape. He was asked about it by the msm literally once.
OTOH, Brett Cavanaugh has been credibly accused by literally no one.
48
FortWayne
2018 Sep 24, 9:13am
FortWayne
2018 Sep 24, 9:13am
Couldn’t delay it back then enough to stop it. Now they only need 35 days and elections can disrupt it.
LeonDurham says
LeonDurham says
So if this is all a left wing conspiracy, why were there no accusers against Gorsuch?
49
doik
2018 Sep 24, 9:13am
CovfefeButDeadly says
Yes, and aside from bad taste in women, there is nothing wrong with that. If you were married to Hillary, you'd look for another woman, too. It wasn't sexual assault. It wasn't a crime. And it wasn't relevant to Clinton's job.
In contrast, Kavaunah's actions were criminal. The fact that he got away with his crimes is irrelevant. A criminal should not be allowed to be a judge, nonetheless a Supreme Court justice, regardless of his politics. If Kavaunah were a left-leaning judge nominated by Obama, every single person defending him here would be calling to have him locked up. That's hypocrisy.
CovfefeButDeadly says
Whataboutism. I don't watch MSM, but if you're saying that network did not cover the ratings generating Cosby trial, then I find that hard to believe. Regardless, what MSM covered during the Cosby trial has nothing to do with Kavaunah and the hypocrisy of the right in defending this man just to get political power.
Kavaunah is Kevin Spacey. The people here have no problem bashing Kevin Spacey, and rightfully so, but they defend the same bad behavior when done by conservative politicians who have real power. 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?
Without other commentary, Monica Lewinsky did in fact suck on Bill Clinton’s cock in the White House and Bill Clinton factually ejaculated on Monica Lewinskys dress.
Yes, and aside from bad taste in women, there is nothing wrong with that. If you were married to Hillary, you'd look for another woman, too. It wasn't sexual assault. It wasn't a crime. And it wasn't relevant to Clinton's job.
In contrast, Kavaunah's actions were criminal. The fact that he got away with his crimes is irrelevant. A criminal should not be allowed to be a judge, nonetheless a Supreme Court justice, regardless of his politics. If Kavaunah were a left-leaning judge nominated by Obama, every single person defending him here would be calling to have him locked up. That's hypocrisy.
CovfefeButDeadly says
At least three women credibly accused Bill Clinton of rape. He was asked about it by the msm literally once.
Whataboutism. I don't watch MSM, but if you're saying that network did not cover the ratings generating Cosby trial, then I find that hard to believe. Regardless, what MSM covered during the Cosby trial has nothing to do with Kavaunah and the hypocrisy of the right in defending this man just to get political power.
Kavaunah is Kevin Spacey. The people here have no problem bashing Kevin Spacey, and rightfully so, but they defend the same bad behavior when done by conservative politicians who have real power. 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?
50
doik
2018 Sep 24, 9:17am
FortWayne says
The left is clearly using this opportunity to delay the vote. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal. However, the left is pursing this almost entirely because of politics, not because of the crimes. I say almost entirely because the left does eat its own when sexual assault is found. Just look at Kevin Spacey. In contrast, the conservatives on patnet clearly show that they have no problem being blatant hypocrites when it comes to moral and legal standards. This is tribalism at its worst.
LeonDurham saysSo if this is all a left wing conspiracy, why were there no accusers against Gorsuch?
The left is clearly using this opportunity to delay the vote. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal. However, the left is pursing this almost entirely because of politics, not because of the crimes. I say almost entirely because the left does eat its own when sexual assault is found. Just look at Kevin Spacey. In contrast, the conservatives on patnet clearly show that they have no problem being blatant hypocrites when it comes to moral and legal standards. This is tribalism at its worst.
51
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 9:23am
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 9:23am
doik says
I don't have pony in this race, but Spacey didn't deny what he did and Kavaunah did. Spacey had soooooo much more to lose $$ by not denying it (admitting it essentially), which he could have. Kavaunah could just go be a corporate lawyer somewhere and make substantially more than being a SC Justice and say fuck this. This has to be accounted for. So not really apples to apples. And not sure how we jump to here:
doik says
When was he convicted of a felony? I'm also not sure when people started believing that EVERYONE was pure and did not do any wrong at ANY time in their lives. Everyone has skeletons in their closet whether they want to admit it or not.
Kavaunah is Kevin Spacey.
I don't have pony in this race, but Spacey didn't deny what he did and Kavaunah did. Spacey had soooooo much more to lose $$ by not denying it (admitting it essentially), which he could have. Kavaunah could just go be a corporate lawyer somewhere and make substantially more than being a SC Justice and say fuck this. This has to be accounted for. So not really apples to apples. And not sure how we jump to here:
doik says
Putting a felon on the Supreme Court is the worst thing you could do. What ever happened to valuing law and order?
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.
52
socal2
2018 Sep 24, 9:30am
doik says
"Facts" you say?
I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
The left is clearly using this opportunity to delay the vote. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal.
"Facts" you say?
I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
53
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 9:35am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 9:35am
Farrow basically admits the Dems went fishing for harassment claims, and that the New Accuser was "consulting with her attorneys" before she decided her memories pointed to Kavanaugh. Dragging Hundred Dollar Bills through the Psychology Department.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/
STEPHANOPOLOS: “This jumped out at me. You said at first she wasn’t sure if this was Kavanaugh last week, and you write after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys she did become confident that it was him.”
FARROW: “And I would say that’s extremely typical with these stories when you are dealing with drama and alcohol. The more caution that I have dealt with in cases like this frequently say, I want to take time and search myself and make sure that I can affirmatively stand by these claims in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan pushback which is what she is receiving now.”
STEPHANOPOLOS: “Why did she come forward?”
FARROW: “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has co cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim. She considers her own memories credible and she felt it was important to tell her own story before others did for her.”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ronan-farrow-new-kavanaugh-accuser-came-forward-because-democrats-came-looking/
54
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 9:36am
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 9:36am
doik 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.
anyone who says that the Democrats aren't doing exactly what the Republicans did during Obama's Supreme Court nominee is a hypocrite.
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.
55
LeonDurham
2018 Sep 24, 9:38am
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
By fishing, you mean investigating, right?
Farrow basically admits the Dems went fishing for harassment claims,
By fishing, you mean investigating, right?
56
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 9:38am
Shaman
2018 Sep 24, 9:38am
doik says
And statements like this really help us take you seriously.
Not.
That, of course, doesn't change the fact that Kavaunah is a criminal.
And statements like this really help us take you seriously.
Not.
57
socal2
2018 Sep 24, 9:45am
Quigley says
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.
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.
58
doik
2018 Sep 24, 9:46am
WookieMan 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?
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
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?
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?
59
doik
2018 Sep 24, 9:54am
Quigley says
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.
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.
60
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 10:06am
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 10:06am
doik says
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.
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.
61
socal2
2018 Sep 24, 10:10am
doik says
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
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
63
doik
2018 Sep 24, 10:28am
WookieMan 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.
WookieMan says
I've already address this.
doik says
doik says
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
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
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?
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?
66
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:37am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:37am
LeonDurham says
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...
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...
67
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:40am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:40am
LeonDurham says
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.
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.
68
socal2
2018 Sep 24, 10:42am
doik says
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.
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.
69
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:48am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:48am
doik says
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.
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.
70
mell
2018 Sep 24, 10:52am
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
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.
doik saysHe'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.
71
LeonDurham
2018 Sep 24, 10:57am
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
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.
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.
72
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:59am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 10:59am
LeonDurham says
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 ;)
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 ;)
73
LeonDurham
2018 Sep 24, 11:02am
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
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?
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?
74
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:05am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:05am
LeonDurham says
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
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.
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.
75
LeonDurham
2018 Sep 24, 11:06am
TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says
So what's the statute of limitations on investigating. 10 years? 20 years?
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?
76
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:08am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:08am
LeonDurham says
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.
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.
77
doik
2018 Sep 24, 11:22am
RC2006 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.
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.
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.
78
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 11:33am
WookieMan
2018 Sep 24, 11:33am
doik says
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
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.
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.
79
socal2
2018 Sep 24, 11:36am
doik 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.
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.
80
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:54am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Sep 24, 11:54am
WookieMan says
@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!
Looks like they dragged too many hundred dollar bills through Academic Research Parks.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 203 Next » Last » Search these comments
This isn’t fight for or anti abortion. It’s a fight of men vs feminist bitches. The bitches who hate all men and want to accuse everyone of rape to gain power over them.