Awesome Supreme Court Justice pic

[Hunter007]

They  just voted yes for the judge 

Finally they got something right looks like 

[crappyice]

The whole thing is insane when 4 witnesses  that she said was at the party say there was no party .
This lady should have been told either you come up with proof or you cant show up at this hearing this whole thing was a joke .
It's like a bigfoot story were 5 guys go camping 1 sees bigfoot and the other 4 say they saw nothing  and never went camping with the one that did see the bigfoot 
Now who would believe that story ?
This  is no different .
 

Come on man...leave Bigfoot out of this! It’s bad enough these lives have been altered!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve863]

After listening to both sides, I think both of them gave convincing testimony.  So who is lying and who is telling the truth is very difficult to determine.  We don't know anymore than we did at the start.  The burden of proof is on the accuser and she surely didn't provide enough of it.   One issue that sticks out in my mind in both of their testimonies is that they were both under age and apparently drank quite a bit on a regular basis.  I have a feeling that one of them was plastered completely out of their mind and doesn't remember everything that happened with this alleged incident and probably numerous others.  And it could have just as easily been Kavanaugh who doesn't remember due to intoxication as it could have been Ford.  That is my .02 on my observation of yesterday's proceedings.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

1 minute ago, steve863 said:

After listening to both sides, I think both of them gave convincing testimony.  So who is lying and who is telling the truth is very difficult to determine.  We don't know anymore than we did at the start.  The burden of proof is on the accuser and she surely didn't provide enough of it.   One issue that sticks out in my mind in both of their testimonies is that they were both under age and apparently drank quite a bit on a regular basis.  I have a feeling that one of them was plastered completely out of their mind and doesn't remember everything that happened with this alleged incident and probably numerous others.  And it could have just as easily been Kavanaugh who doesn't remember due to intoxication as it could have been Ford.  That is my .02 on my observation of yesterday's proceedings.

I found some of her inconsistencies bothersome. Right down to her "fear of flying" so she would have to postpone testimony. Then it was brought up by counsel that she jets all over the world for her hobbies and visiting family every year. That came across as staged to achieve the purpose of delaying the hearing and subsequent vote and not in a effort to get to the bottom of this. Like you said the burden of proof should be on the accuser. She didn't provide any other than her statement in my opinion. I do find it funny how the Dems are screaming to withdraw him from consideration and that her word should be enough and those same people certainly didn't take the same view with Clinton about his escapades. 

[GreeneHunter]

1 minute ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

 I do find it funny how the Dems are screaming to withdraw him from consideration and that her word should be enough and those same people certainly didn't take the same view with Clinton about his escapades. 

Poor Billy Clinton ..... so misunderstood !

[steve863]

6 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I found some of her inconsistencies bothersome. Right down to her "fear of flying" so she would have to postpone testimony. Then it was brought up by counsel that she jets all over the world for her hobbies and visiting family every year. That came across as staged to achieve the purpose of delaying the hearing and subsequent vote and not in a effort to get to the bottom of this. Like you said the burden of proof should be on the accuser. She didn't provide any other than her statement in my opinion. I do find it funny how the Dems are screaming to withdraw him from consideration and that her word should be enough and those same people certainly didn't take the same view with Clinton about his escapades. 

I agree, I found the fear of flying issue to be her biggest inconsistency.

As far as the democratic Senators, they are complete snakes in the grass as I mentioned in an earlier post.  You could just see the sleaze sliding down their faces.  To be perfectly honest, I think the Republicans have blame in this charade as well.  I know the democrats took this to a completely different level than when Garland was nominated by Obama, but all the bloody republicans had to do then was to give him a hearing and then reject him in the Senate vote.  Why was that considered so difficult?  They had the freaking majority back then also, so why couldn't they just hear the dude out?   That stunt just gave even more fuel to the democrats fire this time around, especially since Kavanaugh will now tip the scale on the court.  The democrats could very well have tried these gutter tactics even if the Republican heard Garland out, but I truly feel that was a big reason they took this route.  For once could someone take the high road?  In my view both sides can be equally disgusting.  All politics has now become is one side trying to outdo the other with these kind of stunts.  Won't be long now before we are in another civil war.  Unbelievable!

 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

23 minutes ago, steve863 said:

 Won't be long now before we are in another civil war. 

 

Bet they'd rethink their no gun stance then...lol

[Hunter007]

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I found some of her inconsistencies bothersome. Right down to her "fear of flying" so she would have to postpone testimony. Then it was brought up by counsel that she jets all over the world for her hobbies and visiting family every year. That came across as staged to achieve the purpose of delaying the hearing and subsequent vote and not in a effort to get to the bottom of this. Like you said the burden of proof should be on the accuser. She didn't provide any other than her statement in my opinion. I do find it funny how the Dems are screaming to withdraw him from consideration and that her word should be enough and those same people certainly didn't take the same view with Clinton about his escapades. 

Yep agreed Come on now if the shoe was on the other foot and the dems had a judge that they new was going to vote for what ever they want they would say yes even to the point of saying yes with  pictures   or even DNA  video evidence of the rape  or sex abuse  there that fanatical. Look at what bill Clinton did for example and got a free pass on . They only care when it helps there agenda 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Storm914

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Come on now if the shoe was on the other foot and the dems had a judge that they new was going to vote for what ever they want they would say yes even to the point of saying yes with  pictures   or even DNA  video evidence of the rape  or sex abuse  there that fanatical. Look at what bill Clinton did for example and got a free pass on . They only care when it helps there agenda 

Weren't we saying about the same thing? 

[Hunter007]

42 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Weren't we saying about the same thing? 

Yep I clicked reply before i finished writing .

[left field]

I'm scared of heights but I'll climb a ladder when I need to or go out onto my rooftop deck, though I won't sit on the edge. It's not uncommon for people with a fear of flying to fly. 

What I found interesting was that she did not state her credentials, accomplishments or use personal references to bolster her credibility. She simply relayed the events of what was a traumatic night as best she remembered and answered questions. He laid out his credentials as if to say "how dare you impugn my character? I went to Yale!" I was surprised by how indignant he was at being questioned. 

What I found even more interesting is how closely his behavior mirrored what any number of people said he was like when he drank to excess, namely, that he was a mean and angry drunk. 

If this was a look into his character, I question whether he has the temperament or emotional stability to be on the SC. 

Interesting times.

[wolc123]

I think that Dr Ford believes what that she is saying, but that it was really just a bad dream.   That is why she can not name the place or the time when it occurred, and why she can provide no evidence of anyone else to support her claims.  The two others whom she mentioned were there have each submitted sworn statements, that the events she described did not occur.   That is the thing about bad dreams: it is only the "dreamer" that actually experiences them.   She may have dreamed of Judge K. and the others, but they were not there in real life.   

 

The real result of this event is the full exposure of the evil democratic vultures who have been feasting on this poor women's carcass, and who are attacking a very humble and honest Brett K.  This will result in a huge backlash during the mid-term elections, just in the nick of time.   Hopefully, these attacks will embolden Brett's conservative leanings, and he will work tirelessly towards overturning Roe vs Wade.  

Senator Grahm's speech was awesome.   

[philoshop]

3 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I found some of her inconsistencies bothersome. Right down to her "fear of flying" so she would have to postpone testimony. Then it was brought up by counsel that she jets all over the world for her hobbies and visiting family every year. That came across as staged to achieve the purpose of delaying the hearing and subsequent vote and not in a effort to get to the bottom of this. Like you said the burden of proof should be on the accuser. She didn't provide any other than her statement in my opinion. I do find it funny how the Dems are screaming to withdraw him from consideration and that her word should be enough and those same people certainly didn't take the same view with Clinton about his escapades. 

Understand right up front that the Dems have zero interest in justice, or in this supposed victim, Dr Ford. Their only interest is in preventing President Trump from achieving anything. As long as you keep that foremost in your mind, everything they do actually makes sense. They go about it stupidly in many cases, but as long as obstruction and resistance are their only goals even stupid can work sometimes. And their supporters drink that kool-aide and ask for more.

I write political commentary and of course I read a lot of leftist commentary. When I read and study the leftist stuff I have to make a conscious effort to change my thinking in order to understand what they  mean, where they're coming from, and where they're going. It's incredibly difficult but necessary. BTW I buy Ibuprofin by the case.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

4 minutes ago, philoshop said:

Understand right up front that the Dems have zero interest in justice, or in this supposed victim, Dr Ford. Their only interest is in preventing President Trump from achieving anything. As long as you keep that foremost in your mind, everything they do actually makes sense. They go about it stupidly in many cases, but as long as obstruction and resistance are their only goals even stupid can work sometimes. And their supporters drink that kool-aide and ask for more.

I write political commentary and of course I read a lot of leftist commentary. When I read and study the leftist stuff I have to make a conscious effort to change my thinking in order to understand what they  mean, where they're coming from, and where they're going. It's incredibly difficult but necessary. BTW I buy Ibuprofin by the case.

I totally get their motivation. My comments were more geared towards how I can't believe they don't realize that everyone looking at this can see right through their thinly veiled attempts .

My head would explode if I had to read their crap for a living. 

[Hunter007]

Now they are asking  on a one week FBI investigation .

Ok want to bet if they do this the  clowns on the left will still be bitching anyway. 

The left really loves there abortions shzz 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Storm914

[steve863]

.

Edited September 28, 2018 by steve863

[eaglemountainman]

PLEASE, get out and vote the midterms!

[steve863]

1 minute ago, steve863 said:

 

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by steve863

[steve863]

1 hour ago, philoshop said:

 Their only interest is in preventing President Trump from achieving anything.

So you will claim that it wasn't the republicans interest to prevent Obama from achieving anything?   Do you think it was right for them not to give Garland a hearing?  They had the votes to keep him off the court, but at least given the man the time of day out of courtesy?

Edited September 28, 2018 by steve863

[Hunter007]

1 hour ago, left field said:

I'm scared of heights but I'll climb a ladder when I need to or go out onto my rooftop deck, though I won't sit on the edge. It's not uncommon for people with a fear of flying to fly. 

What I found interesting was that she did not state her credentials, accomplishments or use personal references to bolster her credibility. She simply relayed the events of what was a traumatic night as best she remembered and answered questions. He laid out his credentials as if to say "how dare you impugn my character? I went to Yale!" I was surprised by how indignant he was at being questioned. 

What I found even more interesting is how closely his behavior mirrored what any number of people said he was like when he drank to excess, namely, that he was a mean and angry drunk. 

If this was a look into his character, I question whether he has the temperament or emotional stability to be on the SC. 

Interesting times.

Yea so if I accuse you of rapping a 15 year old girl I guess you will not get mad right ?

Left will say that if he just took there bs with out emotion and you know it .

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Storm914

[philoshop]

8 minutes ago, steve863 said:

So you will claim that it wasn't the republicans interest to prevent Obama from achieving anything?   Do you think it was right for them not to give Garland a hearing?  hey had the votes to keep him off the court, but at least given the man the time of day out of courtesy?

It's really difficult to understand what you type, but I think I have the gist of it. Garland's nomination occurred during the end of Obama's  Presidency. It would have negated the will of the people who were about to vote in a new President who had promised to change the makeup of the SCOTUS. Are you following? It's an unwritten rule that outgoing Presidents can't f*** with the incoming President  and the will of the people. Obama did both, but that's a book I'm working on.

Just as an aside, If President Trump had nominated Merrick Garland the outcome would be the same. Venom, vitriol and hatred.

[left field]

7 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Yea so if I accuse you of rapping a 15 year old girl I guess you will not get mad right ?

3

He wasn't accused of rape, but to answer your question, yes, but not in court, on camera and in front of the country. 

21 minutes ago, steve863 said:

So you will claim that it wasn't the republicans interest to prevent Obama from achieving anything?   Do you think it was right for them not to give Garland a hearing?  They had the votes to keep him off the court, but at least given the man the time of day out of courtesy?

"In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama, 'You will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.'"

The expectation that the SCOTUS should be partisan is insane. If Kavanaugh fails, Trump could nominate Garland which would stifle everyone, put a qualified jurist on the bench and go far to heal the country. Odds on that? Of course, that presumes a unified country is anyone's goal. 

[steve863]

2 minutes ago, philoshop said:

It's really difficult to understand what you type, but I think I have the gist of it. Garland's nomination occurred during the end of Obama's  Presidency. It would have negated the will of the people who were about to vote in a new President who had promised to change the makeup of the SCOTUS. Are you following? It's an unwritten rule that outgoing Presidents can't f*** with the incoming President  and the will of the people. Obama did both, but that's a book I'm working on.

Just as an aside, If President Trump had nominated Merrick Garland the outcome would be the same. Venom, vitriol and hatred.

Negated what will of the people?  How was Obama f***ing the incoming president?  The republicans had the votes in the Senate to keep Garland out, but how difficult would it have been to give him at least a hearing?  At the same time taken the higher road than the democrats took this time.  

  Your blind partisanship is just as bad as any rabid democrats I am sorry to tell you.  

[eaglemountainman]

"Just as an aside, If President Trump had nominated Merrick Garland the outcome would be the same. Venom, vitriol and hatred."

 

Yep.

Edited September 28, 2018 by eaglemountainman

[steve863]

1 minute ago, eaglemountainman said:

"Just as an aside, If President Trump had nominated Merrick Garland the outcome would be the same. Venom, vitriol and hatred."

 

Yep.

May I ask whom you guys think would be spewing this  "Venom, vitriol and hatred"?