TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
She got that. It's the presumption of guilt that was questionable.
What you're leaving out of the equation is that Ford didn't have enough evidence after 36 years to prove anything convincingly.
She got that. It's the presumption of guilt that was questionable.
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!
Doesn't seem all that questionable these days...
What presumption of guilt by whom?
Presumption of the idea by the democrats that Kavanaugh must be guilty based on the accusation of Ford. The slogans of the Left made it plain as to what passes as proof: "I believe survivors" and "I believe women". First, to be a survivor, you would have to actually survive something. And being a woman doesn't give a person more credibility than a man.
Because it was made darned sure that no evidence of that nature was allowed to be investigated! Why weren’t Ford, Ramirez or Swetnick allowed to be interviewed under oath by the FBI, for example...? Why were none of the other people who claim they have evidence given the opportunity...?
Yes, you certainly won’t have “enough” evidence if you make sure that you don’t look for it...
Democrats aren't allowed to have opinions in this country?
They already voiced their opinions. What they weren't allowed to do is let those opinions keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.
Democrats aren't allowed to act on their opinions in this country?
If they "act" within the confines of the law, then they can act however they want.
I'm sure they will be relieved to have approval.
To recap: the Democrats had opinions, those in the Senate acted on them, and, parliamentary procedures being what they are, were outvoted.
I believe that there was allegedly something "questionable" about this?
Presumption of the idea by the democrats that Kavanaugh must be guilty based on the accusation of Ford. The slogans of the Left made it plain as to what passes as proof: "I believe survivors" and "I believe women".
First, to be a survivor, you would have to actually survive something.
And being a woman doesn't give a person more credibility than a man.
Are you talking about the right of the opinions of Senators, or the protesters?
Senators did their job, even though they were clearly more interested in politicizing Ford.
Protesters simply believed who they wanted to believe. Good for them.
And this is why the slogans exist. Not because Kavanaugh is guilty by default but because so many are willing to dismiss the claims out of hand. Even though sexual assault is a common experience among women.
Do women get sexually assaulted at over 3 times the frequency of men?
Does either group have questionable rights?
Indeed, everybody did. Good for us.
Non Sequitur. Follow along with what is being discussed.
Good indeed! I wouldn't mind even seeing a couple more conservatives on the court who know how to actually abide by the Constitution.
"Out of hand"? She sat there and told her story, with holes in it. She got her time on TV in front of the US Senate. She wasn't "dismissed". She just ended up not being believed after she made her allegations.
Not sure how that relates to what I said. Simply "believing women" because they're women is sexist.
She was dismissed for not having come forward sooner prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "On the left" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being an "elitist" because she worked at a left leaning college prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being "too ugly to rape" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed for being a "Party girl" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because the timing was "Too convenient" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she must be being "Paid off by the democrats" prior to giving any testimony.
She was dismissed because she was "Just looking for her 15 minutes of fame" prior to giving any testimony.
I saw you personally use some of these excuses to dismiss her so kindly spare me the song and dance about how women are not dismissed out of hand. This single example shows women who are sexually assaulted can expect to be blown off.
How about believing women because 1 in 6 is sexually assaulted? Is that a good reason to believe women?
I'm not a Senator who listened to her testimony and weighed out the facts. Those are the people who we're talking about.
Then believe those 1 in 6 women if they actually have a credible case. But believing them all simply "because they're women" doesn't work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?