Fresh8686

Yea, he's going to do that **** again. What the **** is wrong with people? If you need to do ****ed up stuff like this feel "sexually fulfilled" something is ****ing wrong with you and you are not safe for potential sexual partners to be around.

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Which people?  Names?

 

 

 

 

Read the article your damn self.
 

There is an unnamed source, which I'm sure you'll immediately discount as a democratic double agent who lives off the blood of Christians and hummus.
But there are other names, read through the article and pay attention when they mention Richard Oh and Mark Krasberg, who corroborates the unnamed democratic double agent source. 

There are also 3 names who dispute it, but who are super close to Kavanugh but then try to pain him as a saint, which we all know isn't true, from everything else we've seen. Especially when you weigh that against Kavanugh's roommate James Roche who vouches for Ramirez over K and characterizes him as someone who would take advantage of a woman in this manner. 

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

If Ramirez really told her friends recently that she couldn't be sure Kavanaugh was the one and then spent 6 days to "review" her memory and then decided Kavanaugh was the one, that blows a titanic sized hole in her credibility in my view.

That's not exactly what the story is saying though. There is a difference between reluctance to characterize an event and reluctance to say whether or not an event occurred. The former implies the reluctance is about details. 

I have no problem with a person who may have been sexually assaulted spending time with an expert to a deep dive in a traumatic past.

Now I can see some assigning corrupt intent to such an action, but were is the evidence for corrupt intent? Especially when there is corroborative evidence from other people who also remember the event occurring.
 

Quote

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

11 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That's what the Farrow story says.  That's not my opinion of it.

There should be multiple people saying that it happened then right?

Bull****, that is not what it says. And if you read the damn article you'd see where many people have been talking about it and remember hearing about it happen back then. There is one lady I read in the article who denies that it happened, but she wasn't there and she also has a reason to lie about it, because her husband is one of the alleged bystanders who was with Kavanaugh as he allegedly stuck his dick in her face.

It's a long article and I may have missed something, but please go ahead an prove me wrong. Show me the quote where you got that from and show me you're not twisting information to suit your bias.

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

She wasn’t sure until the Dems came looking and pressed the issue. 

 

 

I thought you were trying to be impartial?

Anyways, you're wrong. Multiple people who attended Yale have known about the incident for the past 35 years and were discussing it with each other over email.

2 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Unfortunately, it took seeing her perpetrator up for SCOTUS to motivate her to tell someone. Why wasn't the fear of him doing it to someone else enough? There is no winner to any of this. Either way she was assaulted, or she is very sick psychologically. And either he did it, or he is being accused of something he didn't do, which is nearly impossible for him to prove.

 

Imagine that I accused you of assaulting me on July 15, 1992 at your best friend's summer BBQ. Prove you didn't?

 

I think her fear of someone like him having influence on the bodies of women for years to come was the kind of motivation you are challenging her to have.

There is a different standard of effort between getting him convicted of attempted rape and disqualified from the supreme court. But, really that is irrelevant, because her original intent, which must not be forgotten or misstated was to remain anonymous. She wanted to heal and move on more than get justice it seems, but after the leak of her identity she was backed into a corner.

If you're accusation included a history of trauma related symptoms and records of discussing the assault from years ago with your therapist, paired with a salacious history of debauchery, listening to your accusation would be warranted. But, just like this case it probably wouldn't result in a conviction.

I wonder if this will have any legs...

6 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It’s the same reason your post didn’t include any of my post questioning the actions and statements of BK and others on the opposite side of Ford. 

 

Your post exemplifies my peeception of this board is board and the left in general.  Any thought or idea that doesn’t completely adhere to a liberal line is dismissed. 

Really?

You make a claim about your reserving of judgement and then I quote your own posts made on around the same damn time that refute it. And in response you ignore all that inconsistency and try to shift the focus to something different on some TWA **** and then you have the nerve to act like there is some concerted "liberal" action to persecute or marginalize you?

Being a conservative has not been the issue in your past couple pages worth of posts.

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Relevance

Not buying that at all.

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

Wouldn’t BK have the same modicum of faculty?

Why are you trying to shift the focus away from the rest of those posts?
 

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

You do realize that your link includes “sources familiar with the situation” and “sources familiar with the matter” but not sources from the Special Counsel’s office. So again, passing on information 2nd and 3rd hand. The Special Counsel’s office has not been a source of ANY news related to any part of the investigation, outside of court appearances. There are “sources familiar with the situation” that state unequivocally that donald Teump is not the target of ANY criminal investigation. But those sources are dismissed because they don’t fit a narrative. Again, if the source isn’t from inside the Mueller team, it is speculation - with the noted exception of what actually happens in the courtroom or court filings. 

So what you think they had Cohen over for tea and crumpets? Maybe they needed some fantasy football advice? What else would he be there for? And we're not even touching on the obstruction of justice part of this case. Or that he is an unindicted co-conspirator with Michael Cohen on campaign finance violations.

Look you can play mister obtuse impartial guy, but the standard of proof for an assumption doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt. The corroborating evidence out in public view affords that.

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Because I wait for details?  And dont assign the crimes of another to this accusation for a political point?

 

I have no idea how to relate the crime committed in that story to empathy for Ford.  None.  They have no connection whatsoever.

 

Does the below look like you're waiting for details? Is this your idea of impartiality? Can you really read your own words below and try to tell us with a straight face that you aren't putting a political slant to your assumptions?

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have no idea why people are so hung up on the FBI.  That's an obvious red herring.  Ford, her atty, and the left KNOW that the FBI isnt going to be involved, and that's why they are demanding it.  They want to be able to claim they wanted to help but couldnt because someone else prevented them from doing so.

 

There is nothing stopping Ford from walking into the police station and filing a police report.  Nothing at all.

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

There is none on sexual assault crimes.

 

The FBI has vetted him multiple times already.

Actually quite a few states have a statute of limitations of sexual assault crimes. Especially the southern states.

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have the view that everyone in politics has an agenda.  And they are all willing to do whatever it takes to meet that agenda.  Which is why I think it's very plausible that she's withholding info on purpose.  I can also believe that she believes what she is saying.  And is just wrong with her memories.  And she's withholding info that would contradict those memories.  I dont believe she wants an FBI investigation.  She just wants to claim that she wants one knowing full well it wont happen.  But a Police one would.  And that would present evidence she doesnt want (whether conscientiously or not) coming out.

Where is you're evidence that points to her getting her memories wrong? What corroboration do you have for this assumption that she is withholding info that would would contradict those memories?

If you have no evidence and this is just your bias, why do you have such a ****ty bias that automatically paints the woman in this situation as being either corrupt/untrustworthy or incapable of giving a reliable account of these events? She has a phd after all, which points to some modicum of faculty to speak and recount experiences don't you think?

 

6 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

That's my point. Mueller has been tight lipped, and all the stuff on the internet is speculation. So saying to anyone you are listening to the wrong source is foolish. Saying that Donald Trump is definitively under criminal investigation is foolish. We all think he is the target of a criminal investigation. All signs point that he should be the target of a criminal investigation. But none of us know he is the source. So saying he is illegitimate or that he shouldn't be allowed to nominate people? 

15 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

That story is horrifying.  And irrelevant to this accusation.  

For you maybe. But, in my view your posts in this thread make it relevant for me. For me, you're a lower intensity example of the people who react towards victims like her with disbelief and suspicion rather than empathy. It characterizes that pattern of behavior which is present in many people, including those who will be hearing Dr. Ford's testimony on Monday.

Of course I don't expect you to accept or agree with that characterization, but for me that's irrelevant.

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yeah, I'm not even going to read that article. I don't have the stomach this morning.

That **** ruined my day yesterday. I completely understand where you're coming from.

But, the sheltered people who blithely arm-chair quarterback these situations need to read it and feel what these women actually face and risk in coming forward.

I don't think people realize how much a woman loses when this happens to them. How much their life is stunted, how so much gets puts on hold just trying to put the broken pieces back together. And how much rage and pain they feel about having to do all that and suffer so, while the assholes who committed the act get to move on like nothing ever happened.

I hate the destruction these self-entitled toxic masculinity "golden boys" leave in their wake.

On 9/13/2018 at 12:19 PM, Bang said:

See, again i go back to the cop out.

It  is always so convenient. God is what i want him to be.

Those other folks certainly believe he is on their side. Just because you believe he's not doesn't mean that is true either.

If there is a god, he is Crom.

for Crom cares not for anything but Crom.
THAT i could believe. At least that makes sense in full view of everything.

 

~Bang

In these last couple points Bang brings up a good point about the different views of God people hold to.

The Sheltering Parental God and the Uncaring Distant God... two poles in a spectrum perhaps?

Does anyone else run through and parse out different possible versions of God to inform their spiritual landscape?

Like, one of the possibilities I operate from is what if God needs our help? What if God is life, but God relies on us, all living beings to harmonize chaos into creation? In this instance, there is no get out of jail free card where you can abrogate responsibility, but instead we are the very substance of life rising from chaos to push creation forward and increase potential and possibility through raw effort, with very real possibilities of failure.

I mean think about how the world has risen from chaos and how much diversity and life springs forth from the higher platform of potential a developed earth creates. Then think of how it can all fall apart, the world being destroyed and life has to start again from a much diminished starting line, patiently spooling for how many eons to again create the right conditions for life and potential to spring from chaos. And it's up to us, we either do it or we don't. And that's how life really is in a lot of ways. You either put in effort and become changed by it, creating adaptation and growth or you don't and either stagnate or regress.

In my spiritual practice I hold and operate from many different possibilities while most importantly holding a gap in my certainty for the space where mystery resides. Too many people don't respect that gap and fall into dogma and conflict as they fight about "truth". What is truth but a proper description of reality? And in our reality, there is a gap or void of knowledge and certainty that we must respect and incorporate into our spiritual practice or else we become unhealthy and out of balance, killing each other for a "truth" that is flawed. Our spiritual senses dulling because we blindly accept second-hand dogma rather than living and developing first-hand spirituality. Feeding our minds with certainty but starving our spirit of the mystery and fruits of potential that is the journey and path of spiritual growth.

Everything in reality, has a gap, a hole or void that is filled by something else. There is a reason for it. It creates need to interact and reach out for other things in reality, which means chemistry and various reactions like combustion that leads to forward motion and greater variations of connection and more expansive degrees of potentiality made manifest.

I yearn for the possibility of one day humans chaining together multiple generations of people who have dedicated themselves to developing their own spiritual compass and palate to the point where we don't need to argue about dogma from the past, because we have our own senses to tell us where to go and how to behave spiritually in the present. I feel like Jesus wanted people to walk his path and adapt and change in similar ways as he did along that path. I don't think he wanted people to be a bunch of clucking hens arguing about what some dude said centuries ago, when if you just dedicated yourself to spirit you'd be able to feel and suss out the right directions yourself.

No offense to Zguy28, but stuff like the above is why religion needs to be updated and renewed or discarded altogether for a more in-tune and dynamic paradigm in my view. We need to get back to what actually nurtures and cultivates spirituality and harvest the fruits of that platform once the development occurs rather than wasting time fighting about doctrine and dogma. Everybody wants to argue about what the destination looks like, rather than talk about the actual path people need to walk to get there and the pattern of changes that take place as you do so.

Like, in my experience if you are actually increasing the capacitance of your spirit, you should be changing to become more attractive and balanced around women because you're sexuality is maturing and harmonizing. There are stable patterns of change that include shifts in energy in the way you see women, the way sexual stimulation effects you, and you're ability to remain coherent and centered in heart and spirit, no matter the sexual intensity. It becomes something you can enjoy and drink deeply from, but it's just another appetite to shape and incorporate in your life as a vehicle for communion and connection. Rather than one of the "most dangerous of sins/temptations known to man that must be ran from". 

These are changes I have witnessed within myself, so when I see dogma from the Apostle Paul and many others like him across the different religions who are undeveloped in spirituality in the realm of sexuality and connection I know to reject it along with any other "poisoned fruit" that is associated with it in the bible/koran/etc. They're keyboard jockey's who have no first-hand experience and no evidence of first-hand development/growth in this particular subject.

That's why my wife (who is an ordained minister herself) and I are working on creating our own spiritual center for people who want to be a part of a balanced, nuanced, and dynamic non-denominational community that doesn't marginalize women or promote primitive traditions and focuses on what the actual steps are to feel more of your spirit within yourself and see it express more in your actions and behaviors.

How to become more sensitive to the right things, how to have a healthy empathetic system that automatically engages around people, how to handle pressure so it doesn't sap your spirit but instead enriches your motivationi, how to protect hope and trust from bitterness, resentment, and cynicism, or the difference between spiritual masculinity/femininity/gender fluidity versus toxic masculinity/femininity/gender fluidity. How to refine and enhance your moral compass and spiritual palate so you are attracted to healthy things and repulsed by unhealthy things, especially in the case where short term stimulation would have you characterize them as otherwise. 

No more of this binary dumbassery, instead we focus on nuance and reality-based context to determine what is healthy vs unhealthy, rather than purely subjective and easily co-opted words like good and evil.


 

56 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

They've declined, and there's no way Trump is going to order them to do so, and even if he did, there's nothing making them abide by that order.

 

This is what we have.  Ds and Rs asking questions.

It could also be both.

Where do you see the FBI has declined?

There is a tweet from the FBI where they specifically say that they were never asked by the president to investigate it, but none I saw where they declined.

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Or someone publicly interviewing for an incredibly important job, right?

Just so I'm understanding you right, you're not implying that Kavanaugh was traumatized and fractured by the attempted rape he allegedly perpetrated are you? And you're not trying to equate the physical and emotional violation of rape to the stress of a job interview are you?

It's more about the presence of a contextual trigger. If the person who raped you or attempted to rape you got away with it and then years later was plastered on TV across America for election to one of the most honored and authority filled positions in the country then that would be a major contextual trigger.

Part of the trauma of rape is how society shames the victims and sides with or often elevates the perpetrators. There are many women, my wife included, who have been raped in the past by men in positions of authority and entitlement. So when they see alleged rapists/sexual predators walking around in positions of power, like being the president, they are dealing with chronic reminders of their traumatic past.

Chronic reminders that society doesn't give a **** about them, that they don't matter, and no one is going to stop these people. No consequences, no resolution, only advancement and support for the entitled ones who commit these crimes. And in the case of Dr. Ford, the one who allegedly, personally committed those crimes against her.
 

23 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I agree with the rest of your post but I have trouble with this one (not sure what that really means other than I’m not really disagreeing with you outright)

 

How timing matters seems to depend on whether it’s true or not. When you are unsure of how true it is how do you know whether to discount it or not? 

 

if it turns out to be false then timing is everything - it’s what makes the dems haphazardly accept it and run with it, it’s what makes the GOP go on the defensive (and look bad even if they are right), it throws the entire confirmation process into a giant mess. 

 

If it winds up being true timing still matters for the same reasons, just different motive (you think/hope?)

 

in fact at this point of the two biggest parts right now one is timing. The timing has the hallmark of a political op against an opponent. That doesn’t mean it is one, it just means it looks like one. 

 

The other being that we have no one else jumping up to say he’s done this to them too. That’s not proof it didn’t happen, it’s just abnormal seeing what we’ve seen with the rest of the sexual assault stuff (I say that as someone with zero actual experience with sexual assault victims and operating based on what I’m seeing in the news)

No disrespect or anything but if you haven’t had any experience, if you’ve been sheltered from those things or haven’t had to help someone recover from things like this over years and years than you’re not going to understand what jumbo is talking about. 

The trauma event itself can often cause fracture, repression, and other protective coping mechanisms that can often hold in place for years, only to be released after examination and introspection occur later via something like therapy or some other kind of emotional processing. 

Its important people understand that reality so it is a part of their mental calculus when evaluating these situations. 

Men especially need to take that time since those kinds of violations are often foreign to their personal experience. 

I will say this. There is more than likely a reasonable difference in effect from getting smashed by DT's at or behind the line of scrimmage versus tackles at the second level.

If it was me and my body, I'd much rather have seasons where the majority of tackle attempts are coming from CB's looking to push me out of bounds than 300+ lbs dudes tryna do a yokozuna smash on my ass.

4 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

The prosecution said he provided nothing helpful and actively hurt their investigation. I don’t understand why he got off so easily. 

It was the judge who gave him the light sentence. Mueller and crew wanted him to get much more time than this. Apparently the judge did so based on comparisons of what other people got for lying to the FBI or whatever, but that's stupid in my opinion and ignores the seriousness of this particular case.

What a candy ass sentencing.

54 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Seems like it's a good time to post this.

 

It's a reminder of the reason why Kaep and others started kneeling instead of sitting on the bench during the anthem.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/

 

 

 

 

Thanks for linking this... some really good excerpts about the intent of this that puts quite a hole in the whole this is at least a conscious sign of disrespect from the players protesting.
 

Quote

From Kaepernick

We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammate. Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect. When we’re on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security.

Quote

From Eric Reid

 
After hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former NFL player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit, the next day during the anthem as a peaceful protest. We chose to kneel because it’s a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.

Quote

From Eric Boyer
 

[Kaepernick] reached out and we were able to sit down together for a couple of hours before the last preseason game last year. It was really cool to hear him just listen, too, and be very open-minded, too, and [say] “Look, I don’t want to hurt you, I don’t want to hurt your brothers and sisters.” I showed him text messages of friends of mine and some of them were saying I was a disgrace to the Green Berets ’cause I was even meeting with him. And some of them were like, “I’m with you man but it really hurts me to see that.”

So when I talked to them, it was mutual. Me, him, and Eric Reid [said] “I think maybe taking a knee would be a little more respectful. It’s still a demonstration. You’re still saying something but, people take a knee to pray. So for me it was a common ground, at least, to start from.

I've yet to hear a reasonable response from anyone coming out against this protest.

It usually boils down to their feelings of outrage over a perceived slight against the flag, military, country or whatever (that NO protestor ever said was intended to be a slight) supersedes the feelings of fear and injustice that other people feel because of police brutality.

Then they go on to argue, that that process of prioritization doesn't make them racist.

If you care more about the perceived slight of a symbol than the safety of a group of people who are of a different color than you, what does that make you?

What is more important? Making sure people aren't killed because of the color of their skin or making sure no one silently and peacefully makes a statement when our anthem is on?

How you react to an issue says something about who you are and where you're coming from as a person.  What you focus on first and choose not to focus on at all, also says something about you as a person. How much emotional effort you put into outrage when a player protests during the anthem versus people talking, drinking beer, and messing around on their phones during the anthem also says something about you as a person.

I just can't see how anyone can be against this and not be an asshole. They may not be a racist in that they hate people of other color, but they sure as **** don't care about people of other colors. 

Racial antipathy rather than racial hatred. Racial paranoia too. Like it boggles my mind when I hear people who are against the protest attribute intention to those doing the protesting. Is there anywhere in history where kneeling was seen as disrespectful before this? Isn't it a universal form of deference? Why are these people so angry at these players?
 

Just now, grego said:

 

don't want to go off track too far. might have to pm you later.

No problem, take your time. And please don't take what I wrote above as directed at you. I'm speaking generally from how I understand things and started writing it before your quote.