Jump to content

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Good defeated Evil this time. The battle must always be fought, and eternal vigilance never relaxed with the left because they want to destroy all that is good and decent.

Absolutely. Free Bill Cosby.

 

Please explain how the release of a convicted rapist from prison is comparable to the dismissal of a rape accusation where the witnesses called by the accuser failed to support the accusation, and no further corrobating evidence was found, where the accuser basically didn't remember anything except that she was assaulted, and somehow absolutely certain about the identity of Justice Kavanaugh. What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ivanhoe

    1061

  • rmgill

    1072

  • Murph

    1602

  • Mr King

    1494

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

Good defeated Evil this time. The battle must always be fought, and eternal vigilance never relaxed with the left because they want to destroy all that is good and decent.

Absolutely. Free Bill Cosby.

Please explain how the release of a convicted rapist from prison is comparable to the dismissal of a rape accusation where the witnesses called by the accuser failed to support the accusation, and no further corrobating evidence was found, where the accuser basically didn't remember anything except that she was assaulted, and somehow absolutely certain about the identity of Justice Kavanaugh. What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

1st. It wasn't a court of law, it was a job interview. The goal was not to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2nd Cosby was convicted on uncorroborated victim testimony. She remembered that Mark Judge was in the room, so you are wrong in your claim of what she remembered and what she didn't remember. Even Mark Judge never claimed it didn't happen...he said he doesn't recall it happening. So based on this, Harvey Weinstein shuld be exonerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

 

Not to mention the bald faced lies such as her claimed fear of flying and the reasoning for the 2nd front door to her house.

Seriously, do you even listen to yourself?

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36818/fords-attorneys-say-fear-flying-didnt-postpone-ashe-schow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Judge is a red herring.

 

The key witness, assuming an evidentiary standard higher than guilt by accusation is Leyland Keyser. Who not only said she couldnt recall the party but also said she never knew Kavanaugh at all.

 

Which is most certainly why Fords team pressured her to change her statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres also a huge political problem with the it was just a job interview spin.

 

It reinforces the case Trump and a lot of Republicans are now making that ANY male (regardless of public stature) is at direct personal threat from these sort of accusations, without the protections of due process, burden of proof and presumed innocence.

 

It was a smart move in the context of the confirmation ... lower the bar to stop Kavanaugh from getting on the court. But not only didnt it work (because a significant portion of the population didnt buy it) its now handed Trump and the Republicans an incredibly potent weapon with the elections only a month away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Absolutely. Free Bill Cosby.

Please explain how the release of a convicted rapist from prison is comparable to the dismissal of a rape accusation where the witnesses called by the accuser failed to support the accusation, and no further corrobating evidence was found, where the accuser basically didn't remember anything except that she was assaulted, and somehow absolutely certain about the identity of Justice Kavanaugh. What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

1st. It wasn't a court of law, it was a job interview.

 

If anything, that was my point. YOU are the one who draws the parallel that a convicted rapist should now be released. Christ, you are a troll.

 

 

 

The goal was not to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

...right. To remove doubt, evidence must be presented in the first place. All that you have is an accusation, nothing else.

Nothing.

So the question is, why are you still flogging this DOA horse, except that you too want to undermine the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?

You can pretend to be concerned about Dr. Ford as much as you want. You know very well that her accusation wouldn't even be admitted to court. So it seems that your prime interest is to perpetuate a smear campaign.

 

 

 

2nd Cosby was convicted on uncorroborated victim testimony.

 

Seems like that uncorrobated victim testimony - from dozens of victims, most of which seemed to have delivered at least consistent statements without gaping holes about minor details like where, when, or circumstances - convinced the jury. There is no equivalence here.

 

 

 

She remembered alleges that Mark Judge was in the room, so you are wrong in your claim of what she remembered and what she didn't remember. Even Mark Judge never claimed it didn't happen...he said he doesn't recall it happening.

 

Under the threat of perjury, I too would claim that I didn't remember when I sincerely believed that something hadn't happened - but how do you prove that something didn't happen? It's impossible.

So, his answer was the smart way to respond. But as it stands, there is still no confirmation of the allegation whatsoever.

 

Back to you, Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things for consideration this morning.

 

1. I can’t locate it right now, but there was an excellent article in the past day or two analyzing the Kavanaugh nomination and general political environment in the US against the book “Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914”. ... an analogy being drawn that just as European leaders didn’t want a war, they ended up in one because they believed the other side would back down first.

 

2. Piece in Politico saying that Democrats now believe they need to be a lot tougher and more ruthless: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

Well I must say Politico seems to have quite a few troll posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Under the threat of perjury, I too would claim that I didn't remember when I sincerely believed that something hadn't happened - but how do you prove that something didn't happen? It's impossible.

So, his answer was the smart way to respond. But as it stands, there is still no confirmation of the allegation whatsoever.

 

Back to you, Paul.

 

Not just the smart way, the only way. As you pointed out, it is impossible to prove a negative, most especially when the proposition is so nebulous and without foundation.

By the way, I am envious, you have the patience of Job. I should have such a tool in my chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things for consideration this morning.

 

1. I can’t locate it right now, but there was an excellent article in the past day or two analyzing the Kavanaugh nomination and general political environment in the US against the book “Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914”. ... an analogy being drawn that just as European leaders didn’t want a war, they ended up in one because they believed the other side would back down first.

 

2. Piece in Politico saying that Democrats now believe they need to be a lot tougher and more ruthless: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

 

1. Saw the same article and like you, can't find it now.

 

2. Saw that as well. More ruthless? I guess gunning down Republicans on ball fields isn't ruthless enough. I guess shouting Republicans out of public restaurants isn't ruthless enough. I guess doxing Republican families isn't ruthless enough. I guess accusing someone of being a serial gang rapist isn't ruthless enough. I guess beating down people with MAGA hats isn't ruthless enough. If they keep pushing the limits of civil society, they aren't going to like the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Jeff my friend, a hypothetical for you ...

 

The political environment is fluid at this point, and Kavanaugh has thrown things up into the air. Polling is all over the place and has yet to settle down, so we don’t know the extent of the #kavanaugheffect, or even if their will be one.

 

And that’s assuming the polls can be trusted after 2016. But if they can they’re showing a lot of generic but rapid movement to the Republicans. For instance in the last three Quinnipiac polls, support from white women (THE crucial suburban voter in the Dem coalition) to the Dems has collapsed from a 13 point advantage two weeks ago to a 5 point advantage last week to a 1 point advantage now.

 

Here’s the hypothetical ... GOP gains seats in the Senate (good chance). GOP actually retains the House (not outside the realm of possibility) Do the Dems:

 

1. Continue along their current path, further radicalizing in both tone and positioning?

 

Or

 

2. Look to a “centrist” leader to put the crazies down, move the Party right and lead them out of the wilderness like Clinton did in 1992?

 

 

And if 2 ... can they still do it? The centrist Southern Dems are gone, marginalized and pushed out of the Party. The closest thing they have is Biden. The superdelegates look to be gone, and the pragmatic money (Pam Harriman) has been supplanted by the likes of Tom

Steyer. Not to mention the radicals are on the ascent and hell of a lot more powerful than 30 years ago ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they don't take the Senate, no big deal. I think that's a long shot anyway.

 

If they fail to take the House as history says they should, it will be a huge defeat and they will go absolutely nuts. 2020 will become a knife fight to see who can be the most extreme anti-Trump banana of the bunch. The Dems are temperamentally incapable of learning a lesson other than to double down on the extreme. They're still fighting the last war.

 

Having said that, it's still a political lifetime until election day though with early voting (an abomination), the election has already started. Timing is everything in elections. Peak too early and you fizzle. Peak too late and you miss the boat. The Republicans are looking like they are peaking at just the right time.

 

Holding the House would be historic and liberal heads would explode. I'm putting my chips on the fact that Trump voters don't talk to pollsters, they are the enemy. The few that will will tell them tall tales to gum up their data.

 

As for what will actually transpire, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that’s assuming the polls can be trusted after 2016.

2016 didn't show that the polls were wrong. They've reached a point where they do a pretty good job telling us how people feel. What 2016 showed us is that polls, and those making forecasts from them, have a long way to go in predicting who will show up to vote.

 

538 had an interesting piece after Trump was elected defending their numbers. They were pointing out out of all the forecasts put out there theirs had Trump as the highest % chance to win (something around 30% IIRC). They had a point. Too often when folks see %s climb into very high numbers they misconstrue something like a 70% chance as 100% (you see this in gaming all the time).

 

Interestingly enough 538 right now has the % for Rs maintaining control of the House at around the same % they had Trump for winning the WH back in 2016.

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And that’s assuming the polls can be trusted after 2016.

2016 didn't show that the polls were wrong. They've reached a point where they do a pretty good job telling us how people feel. What 2016 showed us is that polls, and those making forecasts from them, have a long way to go in predicting who will show up to vote.

 

538 had an interesting piece after Trump was elected defending their numbers. They were pointing out out of all the forecasts put out there theirs had Trump as the highest % chance to win (something around 30% IIRC). They had a point. Too often when folks see %s climb into very high numbers they misconstrue something like a 70% chance as 100% (you see this in gaming all the time).

 

Interestingly enough 538 right now has the % for Rs maintaining control of the House at around the same % they had Trump for winning the WH back in 2016.

 

"2016 didn't show that the polls were wrong." Depends on what part of the year they were taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't interrupt him, he is on a role, he is about to get to the part where the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. His handlers at the DNC have given him, and all the other drones their orders, so pesky things like facts can't get in the way of "The Narrative". I think something happened to her, just not Brett Kavanaugh.

 

 

 

Absolutely. Free Bill Cosby.


Please explain how the release of a convicted rapist from prison is comparable to the dismissal of a rape accusation where the witnesses called by the accuser failed to support the accusation, and no further corrobating evidence was found, where the accuser basically didn't remember anything except that she was assaulted, and somehow absolutely certain about the identity of Justice Kavanaugh. What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

1st. It wasn't a court of law, it was a job interview.

 

If anything, that was my point. YOU are the one who draws the parallel that a convicted rapist should now be released. Christ, you are a troll.

 

 

 

The goal was not to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

...right. To remove doubt, evidence must be presented in the first place. All that you have is an accusation, nothing else.

Nothing.

So the question is, why are you still flogging this DOA horse, except that you too want to undermine the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?

You can pretend to be concerned about Dr. Ford as much as you want. You know very well that her accusation wouldn't even be admitted to court. So it seems that your prime interest is to perpetuate a smear campaign.

 

 

 

2nd Cosby was convicted on uncorroborated victim testimony.

 

Seems like that uncorrobated victim testimony - from dozens of victims, most of which seemed to have delivered at least consistent statements without gaping holes about minor details like where, when, or circumstances - convinced the jury. There is no equivalence here.

 

 

 

She remembered alleges that Mark Judge was in the room, so you are wrong in your claim of what she remembered and what she didn't remember. Even Mark Judge never claimed it didn't happen...he said he doesn't recall it happening.

 

Under the threat of perjury, I too would claim that I didn't remember when I sincerely believed that something hadn't happened - but how do you prove that something didn't happen? It's impossible.

So, his answer was the smart way to respond. But as it stands, there is still no confirmation of the allegation whatsoever.

 

Back to you, Paul.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah,. next it will be murdering Republicans families, and governments making Antifa part of the recognized police force like Portland did. Can the left get a clue that what they are doing is just like the Nazi's during the Weimar republic days? Now they want to amend the Constitution to get rid of the proportional representation in the Senate so that uber Lib states will RULE.

 

Two things for consideration this morning.

1. I can’t locate it right now, but there was an excellent article in the past day or two analyzing the Kavanaugh nomination and general political environment in the US against the book “Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914”. ... an analogy being drawn that just as European leaders didn’t want a war, they ended up in one because they believed the other side would back down first.

2. Piece in Politico saying that Democrats now believe they need to be a lot tougher and more ruthless: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-confirmation-democrats-anger-221089

 

1. Saw the same article and like you, can't find it now.

 

2. Saw that as well. More ruthless? I guess gunning down Republicans on ball fields isn't ruthless enough. I guess shouting Republicans out of public restaurants isn't ruthless enough. I guess doxing Republican families isn't ruthless enough. I guess accusing someone of being a serial gang rapist isn't ruthless enough. I guess beating down people with MAGA hats isn't ruthless enough. If they keep pushing the limits of civil society, they aren't going to like the result.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Absolutely. Free Bill Cosby.

Please explain how the release of a convicted rapist from prison is comparable to the dismissal of a rape accusation where the witnesses called by the accuser failed to support the accusation, and no further corrobating evidence was found, where the accuser basically didn't remember anything except that she was assaulted, and somehow absolutely certain about the identity of Justice Kavanaugh. What's more, she invited doubt about her sincerity due to the various moves to delay the hearing.

1st. It wasn't a court of law, it was a job interview.

If anything, that was my point. YOU are the one who draws the parallel that a convicted rapist should now be released. Christ, you are a troll.

 

The goal was not to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

...right. To remove doubt, evidence must be presented in the first place. All that you have is an accusation, nothing else.

Nothing.

So the question is, why are you still flogging this DOA horse, except that you too want to undermine the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court?

You can pretend to be concerned about Dr. Ford as much as you want. You know very well that her accusation wouldn't even be admitted to court. So it seems that your prime interest is to perpetuate a smear campaign.

 

2nd Cosby was convicted on uncorroborated victim testimony.

Seems like that uncorrobated victim testimony - from dozens of victims, most of which seemed to have delivered at least consistent statements without gaping holes about minor details like where, when, or circumstances - convinced the jury. There is no equivalence here.

 

She remembered alleges that Mark Judge was in the room, so you are wrong in your claim of what she remembered and what she didn't remember. Even Mark Judge never claimed it didn't happen...he said he doesn't recall it happening.

Under the threat of perjury, I too would claim that I didn't remember when I sincerely believed that something hadn't happened - but how do you prove that something didn't happen? It's impossible.

So, his answer was the smart way to respond. But as it stands, there is still no confirmation of the allegation whatsoever.

 

Back to you, Paul.

"Christ you are a Troll!" Seriously. Yout emotional state is not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Christ you are a Troll!" Seriously. Yout emotional state is not my problem.

 

LOL. Thanks for confirming my point once more.

You want to elicit a response? Here it is, I note that you have nothing of substance to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Judge is a red herring.

 

The key witness, assuming an evidentiary standard higher than guilt by accusation is Leyland Keyser. Who not only said she couldnt recall the party but also said she never knew Kavanaugh at all.

 

Which is most certainly why Fords team pressured her to change her statement.

Red herring? How in g'ds name do you figure that. The victim testimony PLACED HIM IN THE ROOM. Its not "he said, she said" because of that. He is a hostile witness, because he has something to lose. Even then he refused to confirm the event did not take place.

 

Keyser's statement does nothing to confirm the event, but nor does it make it less credible. It is completely neutral. Ford had a completely rational explanation.

 

Leland has significant health challenges, and Im happy that shes focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera, So Im glad that shes taking care of herself. I dont expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.

Women that put themselves out regarding sexual assault get attacked...period, it has always been the case...the Kavanaugh hearing now just reinforced that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"Christ you are a Troll!" Seriously. Yout emotional state is not my problem.

LOL. Thanks for confirming my point once more.

You want to elicit a response? Here it is, I note that you have nothing of substance to say.

Correct. I have absolutely nothing of substance to say to one who has to resort to name calling.

 

Here...argue with Sam Harris.

 

https://youtu.be/Yl1VYF0avk4

Edited by Paul G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNSEAL! UNSEAL! UNSEAL! :D

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/pelosi-shoots-feinstein-foot-files-foia-report-colleague-wanted-private/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=conservative-brief-CT&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=conservative-tribune

Pelosi Shoots Feinstein in Foot, Files FOIA on Report Colleague Wanted Private

Sounds more like shooting her in the back

Edited by shep854
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...