• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About NoCalMike

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 07/12/1980

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Location
    Sacramento, CA
  • Interests
    Redskins football....Kings basketball.......A's Baseball
  • Occupation
    Currently Taking offers...!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wish more American people wondered.
  2. Exactly. Right now if the hearing happens the way the GOP wants, it will be purely 100% he said-she said. A proper investigation could result in additional information being shared & collected to help aid the hearing. And then everyone can just throw up their hands and go back to their corners. If you are asking questions at the hearing why would you even want to be in a he said-she said situation if it was at all possible to avoid it? If you take the accusation seriously like the GOP is claiming they do, they should want to do their due diligence on this.
  3. Not trying to be "that guy" but there are answers to some of these questions in this thread and in the news.
  4. Well if she testifies before an investigation, doesn't that all but guarantee there won't be one? Also, you do the investigation first, recover every bit of evidence possible from that night, then you can base your questions around what you now know to be true. It could help shape & mold the questions being asked at the hearing.
  5. I would suggest investigating a potential supreme court judge doesn't fall under the realm of normal, yeah? Well.....there's that. Hahaha.
  6. Is it unobtainable or just unobtainable in the timeline that the GOP wants this to be wrapped up? Not being snarky, just asking because she isn't the only one asking for the FBI to be involved.
  7. Well the guy isn't going to go to jail regardless. There is the court of public opinion, but there should also be a legitimate investigation so as much information and details as possible can be used to come to the best possible conclusion. I don't know. We have to cross that bridge when we get there I suppose, however when we say "cooperate" it should also be reasonable as far a what is being requested of her. Last I heard she is asking for an investigation to be done first before testifying. Does that sound unreasonable?
  8. Again this idea that Kavanaugh has somehow been punished his whole life for this alleged incident. If what Ford said is true, can someone point to any point up until a few days ago that he has been held accountable? He seemed to go on with his fruitful life never having to worry about it. Can he be forgiven? I would say yes, however forgiving him *and* rewarding him with a lifetime appointment to a position that will shape our laws for the next 40 years? Nah.
  9. Of course. How could I have been so stupid.
  10. Do some digging on that Mark Judge guy, and I have a feeling he is going to start "losing his memory" on a lot of stuff pretty soon. Also yeah, who the hell knows 65 people let alone females at 17 well enough for them to attest to your character. Come on. Doesn't mean there aren't maybe 5-10 of those signatures that are legit and that actually knew him, but 65? GTFO. And what, was this "Letter of 65" sitting around just waiting for the accusation to go public? If not that was some record-breaking assembling of Kavanaugh's high school era "peoples that knew him"
  11. I thought people were saying sexual assault leaning towards possible attempted rape? Who is saying she was raped?
  12. Elites protecting elites. What else is new?
  13. I would guess the strategy is rush the hearing without the aid of any kind of investigation, so it ends up purely he said-she said, so then everyone can just throw their hands up in the air and claim they have no idea who is telling the truth and vote along party lines.
  14. As long as the next nominee didn't sexually assault a girl (allegedly) he will be confirmed regardless.
  15. As far as "should this even DQ him if it is all true" question goes. Something that was eluded to earlier in the thread. There are people in this world that win the lottery in life from birth. From day one they are on the fast track to success and everything that comes with it. They are prepped for success and "hand-held" every step of the way to ensure it. (Nothing inherently wrong with that, admittingly)However as a bi-product, often the entitlement sets in from an early age and they know it. Some of them take advantage of it with bad behavior, sometimes even worse behavior. You constantly over and over see the attitude of these individuals and those around them be it their families, their friends (fellow elites from their peer groups) treat stuff like this as a minor inconvenience on their road to prosperity. Look at the trials of guys like Brock Turner, or the Affluent kid that got drunk and killed people.....what do you *ALWAYS* hear at their is always about how this is going to affect them and the awesome life they were on track and supposed to have. It is the narcissism of the privileged that the rest of society simply doesn't matter and they should simply shut up and get out of the way. So when I hear people trying to craft the argument of "So....yeah....maybe he did do it, but...." No, there is no but. If he did it, he has no business being on the Supreme Court, period.