Ghost of Igloi wrote:
^SJW ...
^ Out of caps for his cap-gun.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
^SJW ...
^ Out of caps for his cap-gun.
hello, hello wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Wrong, that is hospitalization.
Exactly. And you are covered automatically at 65. Hypocrite.
Not true. I am still working, covered by my employer plan. Only coverage under Medicare is hospitalization. I have been treated for cancer last nine months United Health Care paid so far $400,000 and $0 Medicare.
venti it is wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
It’s Vente, ....
Oops on you.
Grande, Venti & Trenta: What Do the Starbucks Names Literally Mean?
https://www.dictionary.com/e/starbucks-trenta/
Gosh, I apologize I am just not a Starbucks expert. I will leave it to you SJWs. That is your gathering place correct?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
venti it is wrote:
Oops on you.
Grande, Venti..
Gosh, I apologize I am just not a Starbucks expert. ....
... you claimed you were.
Flagpole wrote:
Wonderbread wrote:
1) Your idiosyncrasies in language defenses are just that...defenses, and not really good ones. Any reasonable person, ESPECIALLY with the Devil's Triangle thing, would know he is flat lying about that. It is highly likely that someone interviewed by the FBI will confirm that that is a lie. He should have said simply that he was a teenager and crass back then rather than lying about it.
It's a good thing you or any of these "reasonable" people are not the ones investigating. A defense is a defense unless proven uncredible. There is no way to conclusively say he was "flat lying" just because you think he was. If he was, then we will see the results (like you said).
2) I can agree to give you the blackout thing, but really, only because there is so much more.
3) While the Renate thing falls into your defense mentioned in #1 above, it's a ridiculous defense. Now that the FBI investigation has been allowed to expand, it is also highly likely that someone with knowledge about this will tell the truth...they can even tone it down if they like...that they went on a date with her, or whatever, but clearly with the poem someone else wrote in his yearbook, it wasn't meant as a flattering thing.
Same as #1. This event has already received so munch national attention and there has yet to be any further corroboration. I'm not ruling it out, but you can't say it's a ridiculous defense when you or I know nothing more about the details. We can sensationalize it all we want based on media headlines.
4) The aggressive comments did NOT just come from people who knew him in college. Ford said this, Swetnick said this, and now another accuser has said they witnessed his aggressiveness in high school while drunk.
You realize that no one is taking Swetnick's accusation seriously, right? And if your only evidence of his aggressiveness is Ford, then we are back at square one. Taking an accusation for face value.
5) Just going to have to disagree with you about the gathering comment. Ford, before even knowing about Kavanaugh's stupid calendar, said she was at a party with Judge, Kavanaugh, PJ and at least one other boy...described pretty closely to that on a Thursday...notably away from the weekend that Kavanaugh wanted all of us to focus on. So, is that the "kind of gathering" Ford described? I say yes.
Ford changed the date range 4 (5?) times leading up to this trial. You think after 35 years you could remember the exact date (in the 80s, mid-80s, early 80s, Summer of 1982) given the scenario.
Here:
In your July 6th text to The Washington Post that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid ’80s. In your letter to Senator Feinstein you said it occurred in the early ’80s.
FORD: Yes.
MITCHELL: In your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in ’80s, and you actually had written in and this is one of the corrections I referred to early and then you crossed that out.
Later in your interview with The Washington Post, you were more specific. You believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said at the end of your sophomore year.
She also corrected the makeup of the "party members" multiple times. Go back and see Ford's exchange with Mitchell about the numbers.
Here:
You told Senator Feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. You’ve corrected that today to say it was at least four others.
When you were interviewed by The Washington Post, you said that there were four boys present at the party. And then in your polygraph statement, you said there were four boys and two girls.
When you say “two girls,” was that you and another or was that two other girls?
6) Regarding his age, I did say it didn't show a lie but a misrepresentation...and it was. So, no reaching there at all.
It's reaching in so far as it has no real relevance to the story. It doesn't negate his testimony.
7) I agree with you that Ford's recollection is vague, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was commenting ONLY about the obvious lies and misrepresentations Kavanaugh made in his hearing. Ford is NOT a perfect witness, and there hardly ever are any.
Here is our problem. There are no obvious lies because you or I can't for sure say that we know the 100% truth. There is no conclusiveness here, so the inconsistencies you may find with Kavanaugh's rambling dialogue are equally supported by those in Ford's vague testimony.
Lying under oath to the Senate Committee should be disqualifying
There is nothing worthy of perjury here.
Meh to your answers. No one can EVER know the absolute truth about anything really, so your statement there is a straw-man. For all we know, God actually does direct everything in our lives and can at His whim create any situation He wants...or aliens can, or whatever, so we can NEVER bee 100% sure of anything really...not without conditions.
Also, do remember this isn't a criminal trial.
Should a reasonable person believe that "Renate Alumni" or whatever it exactly was means something positive about her?
Should a reasonable person believe that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game?
Should a reasonable person be swayed to JUST look at the weekends in Kavanaugh's stupid calendar because he told us that was the only reasonable time he would party when right there on said stupid calendar is Thursday July 1 with the names of three of the people at supposed party? Not a lie here, but clear attempt at minimizing what people were to look at.
Regarding Swetnick, only people on the right aren't taking her seriously. Avenatti now has another witness who says that what she is saying is true. Surely deserves an interview.
Anyway, you are clearly biased. I'll let you have the last word if you like, but I don't plan on responding. I tire of you.
LOL! You got crushed in this debate!
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
This is a political process, not a judicial one. Due process is entirely irrelevant. Kavanaugh does not have his freedom at stake. Not even any of his money. No fines, no jail time.
Kavanaugh and his family will face the wrath of Maxine Waters' army of antifa crazies harassing them whenever they go out to a restaurant or camping out at his house thanks to this baseless allegation.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Not true. I am still working, covered by my employer plan.
Your previously claimed you worked for yourself. Your 'employer' is you.
venti wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gosh, I apologize I am just not a Starbucks expert. ....
... you claimed you were.
...like the Surfer Psychologist claims.....unfounded.....
Hardloper wrote:
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
This is a political process, not a judicial one. Due process is entirely irrelevant. Kavanaugh does not have his freedom at stake. Not even any of his money. No fines, no jail time.
Kavanaugh and his family will face the wrath of Maxine Waters' army of antifa crazies harassing them whenever they go out to a restaurant or camping out at his house thanks to this baseless allegation.
Harassment is a crime -- not hard to get a TRO or the like.
Slander and libel is also a crime.
A lot of wannabe legal types who are decidedly low information
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
...like the Surfer .....
^ rolled over and played dead after epic spelling face plant
igloi lied wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Not true. I am still working, covered by my employer plan.
Your previously claimed you worked for yourself. Your 'employer' is you.
....I own my business (my clients)...covered by company plan
.....the only liars are Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez, oh and Blumenthal
Why is everything epic with millennials? Can’t wait for the epic “Liberal tears over Kavanaugh confirmation” YouTube videos. So epic. Just like an epic venti Frappuccino. Especially epic on mom’s card. Epically epic, bro. So epic, brah.
you are defeated wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
...like the Surfer .....
^ rolled over and played dead after epic spelling face plant
Harambe wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Kavanaugh and his family will face the wrath of Maxine Waters' army of antifa crazies harassing them whenever they go out to a restaurant or camping out at his house thanks to this baseless allegation.
Harassment is a crime -- not hard to get a TRO or the like.
Slander and libel is also a crime.
A lot of wannabe legal types who are decidedly low information
Was anyone charged with a crime for chasing Ted Cruz out of a restaurant? Or surrounding McConnel's house?
Flagpole wrote:
Meh to your answers. No one can EVER know the absolute truth about anything really, so your statement there is a straw-man. For all we know, God actually does direct everything in our lives and can at His whim create any situation He wants...or aliens can, or whatever, so we can NEVER bee 100% sure of anything really...not without conditions.
Also, do remember this isn't a criminal trial.
Should a reasonable person believe that "Renate Alumni" or whatever it exactly was means something positive about her?
Should a reasonable person believe that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game?
Should a reasonable person be swayed to JUST look at the weekends in Kavanaugh's stupid calendar because he told us that was the only reasonable time he would party when right there on said stupid calendar is Thursday July 1 with the names of three of the people at supposed party? Not a lie here, but clear attempt at minimizing what people were to look at.
Regarding Swetnick, only people on the right aren't taking her seriously. Avenatti now has another witness who says that what she is saying is true. Surely deserves an interview.
Anyway, you are clearly biased. I'll let you have the last word if you like, but I don't plan on responding. I tire of you.
I'll gladly have the last word.
"Meh to your answers. No one can EVER know the absolute truth about anything really, so your statement there is a straw-man. For all we know, God actually does direct everything in our lives and can at His whim create any situation He wants...or aliens can, or whatever, so we can NEVER bee 100% sure of anything really...not without conditions."
This doesn't make any sense. But as soon as you mentioned god and aliens I knew you were cracking. Away with this nonsense. Plenty of scenarios can be proven without any deniability.
"Also, do remember this isn't a criminal trial."
Good thing for dems I guess because this case would be thrown out immediately.
"Should a reasonable person believe that "Renate Alumni" or whatever it exactly was means something positive about her?
Should a reasonable person believe that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game?
Should a reasonable person be swayed to JUST look at the weekends in Kavanaugh's stupid calendar because he told us that was the only reasonable time he would party when right there on said stupid calendar is Thursday July 1 with the names of three of the people at supposed party? Not a lie here, but clear attempt at minimizing what people were to look at."
And I'm the biased one?
"Regarding Swetnick, only people on the right aren't taking her seriously. Avenatti now has another witness who says that what she is saying is true. Surely deserves an interview."
Try again. Have your read about this person's history? Her own account deviated from her affidavit.
Next week silence from the SJWs. Searching desperately for the next moral outrage. They took a sack lunch, a Grande Latte, but found nothing.....but silence....
Fat hurts wrote:
There is no way Republicans would let us have due process.
But I agree, it matters. For the Supreme Court, it matters a lot.
THIS from the party that knowingly sat on the accusations for months. Laughable.
joedirt wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
There is no way Republicans would let us have due process.
But I agree, it matters. For the Supreme Court, it matters a lot.
THIS from the party that knowingly sat on the accusations for months. Laughable.
apples to oranges, but anyway, as you should know, Dr Ford asked the Dems not to publicize the accusations. Only after Dr Ford ok'd going public did the Dems do so.
I guess you would prefer going against the will of the accuser?
Hardloper wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Harassment is a crime -- not hard to get a TRO or the like.
Slander and libel is also a crime.
A lot of wannabe legal types who are decidedly low information
Was anyone charged with a crime for chasing Ted Cruz out of a restaurant? Or surrounding McConnel's house?
Being chased out of a restaurant once =/= whenever they go out. This isn't hard
Harambe wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Was anyone charged with a crime for chasing Ted Cruz out of a restaurant? Or surrounding McConnel's house?
Being chased out of a restaurant once =/= whenever they go out. This isn't hard
How many restaurants have you been chased out of for being a dumb ass?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
igloi lied wrote:
Your previously claimed you worked for yourself. Your 'employer' is you.
....I own my business (my clients)...covered by company plan
.....the only liars are Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez, oh and Blumenthal
^Works for Edward Jones. Pretty much the McDonalds of financial advisors