Originally posted by @very-rusty
LOL...So true, I am going to pick me! 😉

-VR

We should be so lucky. I’m going with Sonhouse. I predict that he’ll manage to electrocute himself when he throws his Facebook computer into his pool.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Oh come on, tiger. What plan would you have? You’re only eight years old!

Your plans involve eating a PB&J sandwich, drinking pints of ale, puffing on cigarettes with Kiddo and rifling through Bronwen’s panty drawer.

Let’s not pretend you’re some geopolitical expert. Save that tall tale for the pub!

Only a partially-educated, ignorant, insular, parochial
yank would think that a Brit would eat a PB&J sandwich.

Originally posted by @mott-the-hoople
just giving a heads up

Your head's up where it usually is.

Originally posted by @mister-moggy
going to start a you tube channel about my llfe.

today's video would show me raking the back lawn.

tomorrow ? well i need to think what would please my new subscribers.

I would find it much more interesting if it showed you raking my backyard.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The right thing to do would be to get legal advice first...

I think a morally sound course of action would have been to telephone the police immediately - while there would still be physical evidence that the rape had occurred - and then I'd have gone door to door with my wife to all the families living on the cult's campus ~ in the middle of the night, if necessary ~ to tell them exactly what had happened.

The web site you showed us proves very clearly that hundreds and hundreds of people and families who'd passed through your cult would have every reason to believe my story.

Then I'd recruit a few men to go to the counsellor's quarters and drag him out and bring him to the cult leader's house where I'd bang on the door till he woke up and let us all in. We would all wait there till the police arrived. I'd have maybe asked a friend to call the local media as well.

The upshot of all this would be [1] everybody would have been warned about the rapist's actions and threats so they could take measures to keep the women and children safe or, if unable to do that, leave the cult, and [2] either the rapist would be charged, or expelled or he'd be moved away from the cult, or me and my family would be expelled or we would have left of our own accord - an option other families might take as well.

If I believed that the rapist was about to make good on his promise to kill my daughter in retaliation for telling people what he'd done, and if there were no other practical choice to prevent him from doing this, it would be morally justifiable for me to kill him.

What a pity that your sibling's brainwashed upbringing was such that she felt unable to tell her parents about what had happened and that she felt it was somehow appropriate to conspire with or obey the cult leader in keeping the rape secret from her parents. What kind of moral compass had she been instilled with? Who knows.

Originally posted by @whodey
There is no proof for either side, so all we have is reasonable doubt. I will now supply the reasonable doubt to exclude the testimony of Christine Ford.

1. It happened 30 or 40 some years ago. Why wait this long? Sure, it is possible that she was traumatized from the attack, but we all know if Kav was not being put on the Supreme Court, nothing would ...[text shortened]... ruling in the past. More bad blood.


Now it's your turn Dims. Why should we believe Ford?

You believe Kavanaugh because it serves your political interests to do so.

You expect the other side to automatically believe Ford because it would serve their political interests to do so.

I'd prefer to wait to hear their testimony.

My wife was last, my Rosemarie fell to her final sleep on September 7th

Harri

Originally posted by @whodey
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/california-gov-brown-on-trump-somethings-got-to-happen-to-this-guy-hes-going-to-undermine-america.html

Well at least according to the governor of California.

What does he mean by this exactly?

What does he mean by this exactly?



He means someone needs to either defeat Trump in the next general election, or Robert Mueller's prosecutors need to remove him by legal means. That's what he means exactly.

Why is this difficult for you to understand?

Originally posted by @whodey
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-apos-yale-fraternity-015915220.html

Just remember, you heard it here first!

It will be like remembering where you were when you first heard JFK was assassinated.

Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity raised a flag of women's underwear in 1985.

Yep, you heard right, Brett Kavanaugh's fraternity raised a flag of wo ...[text shortened]... drunk teenager, granted did not rape her, and now this?

Come on GOP. What are you thinking?

Once again, if only you were not just putting out another anti-democrat sarcastic rant fooling nobody. How does it feel to have zero credibility?

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=4690197&page=1

And that's "on top of a three-year plan to cut 10,000 jobs".

Thank God for those tax cuts, huh?

Originally posted by @vivify
Thank God for those tax cuts, huh?

I'm so tired of winning.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Me too. Seems more reasonable to think that he just made it up in an effort to further his ends.

Why would you trust anything in scripture if you can just blow off who and what you don’t like?

Originally posted by @mister-moggy
i was ""ming the merciless".

You were more charming then.

Originally posted by @whodey
We all have political bias. So what? You pretend you would really care about this had Kav not been nominated for the Supreme Court? Really?

Again, all we have is reasonable doubt to go on. I've already shown the bias of the accuser and you don't care because it suits your political goals.

You really have only shown your own extreme biases.

As you do every day here.

Kavanaugh is not charged with a criminal offense so the standard of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt". It is ridiculous to judge the matter by media reports; let the parties testify and unearth whatever other evidence can be found and then apply the proper "preponderance of evidence" standard.

Politics should have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by @whodey
She should testify, but won't

Don't you agree that this is not a good sign?

But to say that politics should have nothing to do with such appointments is just pretending that reality does not exist.

Really? We all understand how the system has devolved. Just get your stooges in place to change around the Constitution to your liking.

In fact, for ...[text shortened]... Supreme Court nominee was automatic. The circus we see around this nomination was nonexistent.

If she refuses to testify, then the matter is closed. Kavanaugh will get confirmed.

I don't remember you making a nostalgic plea for non partisanship when Merrick Garland was denied a hearing and vote.