SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[LadySkinsFan]

[Kilmer17]

When in doubt, make fun of Christians 

[visionary]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here’s a good question for Ford. 

 

How ie can you be so sure it was BK but not able to even remember the year it allegedly occurred?

That’s really not that unusual.  Time can be much harder to remember, especially if you spent years trying to forget the whole thing.  

 

Even in positive situations a person can remember hanging out with a friend and some antics they got up to, but not necessarily when it happened.

Edited September 21, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, gbear said:

I am sick of hearing there is no evidence.

 

Saying the same thing over and over does not make saying something evidence. 

 

I agree with the gist of your post. But it’s not evidence. 

[Kilmer17]

Just now, visionary said:

That’s really not that unusual.  Time can be much harder to remember, especially if you spent years trying to forget the whole thing.

That’s kind of my point for days now.  It’s possible she was assaulted and her mind is now convicnced it was BK

[gbear]

Good question kilmer.

 

Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties?  Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims).

Good question kilmer.

 

Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties?  Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims).

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, gbear said:

Good question kilmer.

 

Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties?  Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims).

Good question kilmer.

 

Can we turn that around to BK and ask how he and judge know he wasnt at the party in question? Did he go to lots of parties?  Which party did he miss that he heard this happened? I just worry when I hear absolutes like "I wasnt there." Makes me want to follow up with where and when questions because they seem to have info the victim is having trouble remembering (also not unusual in trauma victims).

I’ve said that multiple times. How can they deny being at something unspecific

 

i want answers too.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by Kilmer17

[tshile]

22 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Again, do you want all the Catholic priests whose vast history of sexual molestation to go unpunished because their despicable acts weren't reported in real time?

 

The key difference is the number of accusers against the person. We see the same thing with all the #metoo stuff

 

yet we only have one accuser here. It doesn’t mean he’s innocent. It just doesn’t fit the pattern. 

[visionary]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

That’s kind of my point for days now.  It’s possible she was assaulted and her mind is now convicnced it was BK

I’ve been wondering about that a lot.  Because I think something definitely happened to her, but I have no idea if it was with him.  I think she believes it was, and maybe it was.  But I’m not sure, which is part of why I’m kind of torn on all this.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

I’ve been wondering about that a lot.  Because I think something definitely happened to her, but I have no idea if it was with him.  I think she believes it was, and maybe it was.  But I’m not sure, which is part of why I’m kind of torn on all this.

I pointed out earlier from Harball, this absolutely will be investigated.  Either fbi or by an nyts reporter.  

 

Bk is either certain she’s wrong.  Or thinks she can’t prove it. 

 

Or I guess he too could think he didn’t do it when he did. 

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

I’ve been wondering about that a lot.  Because I think something definitely happened to her, but I have no idea if it was with him.  I think she believes it was, and maybe it was.  But I’m not sure, which is part of why I’m kind of torn on all this.

 

Because of what her friends say I believe something happened to her. 

 

I just don’t know what and certainly who did it. 

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Or I guess he too could think he didn’t do it when he did.

 

He could have been too drunk. 

 

Not an excuse to do it, just a justification for not knowing he did it. 

 

Ive certainly done things while drunk I don’t remember. A lot of things. Piecing it together the next morning usually began with “where did this gigantic bruise come from?”

Edited September 21, 2018 by tshile

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Because of what her friends say I believe something happened to her. 

 

I just don’t know what and certainly who did it. 

 

He could have been too drunk. 

 

Not an excuse to do it, just a justification for not knowing he did it. 

 

Ive certainly done things while drunk I don’t remember. A lot of things. Piecing it together the next morning usually began with “where did this gigantic bruise come from?”

The stupid cliche of two drunk people waking up the next morning happens.  And no.  That’s not a reference to this accusation.  

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

The stupid cliche of two drunk people waking up the next morning happens.  And no.  That’s not a reference to this accusation.  

*what was her name..... **** it I want an omelette*

 

the only good breakfast food at cnu’s cafeteria were the omelets 

[Fresh8686]

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.

[visionary]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

The key difference is the number of accusers against the person. We see the same thing with all the #metoo stuff

 

yet we only have one accuser here. It doesn’t mean he’s innocent. It just doesn’t fit the pattern. 

I will say I’ve seen at least one person sent away to prison for years mainly on the testimony of just one accuser.

[tshile]

Just now, visionary said:

I will say I’ve seen at least one person sent away to prison for years mainly on the testimony of just one accuser.

 

I’m assuming strong testimony?

[Kilmer17]

4 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

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

Relevance

[visionary]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I’m assuming strong testimony?

Honestly I’m not sure, but the judge decided she was more believable than him.

[Fresh8686]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Relevance

 

Not buying that at all.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, Fresh8686 said:

 

Not buying that at all.

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. 

[LadySkinsFan]

30 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

When in doubt, make fun of Christians 

 

Not making fun of Christians, it's what they believe, right? Because a highly edited book that was originally written a couple of centuries after the events being written about is the basis of their beliefs?

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Not making fun of Christians, it's what they believe, right? Because a highly edited book that was originally written a couple of centuries after the events being written about is the basis of their beliefs?

You’d have to ask one of them. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

I am absolutely invested in continuing to expose liberal idiocy and hypocrisy.  Im happy to have a place that offers so much opportunity to practice my craft.

Is that what you think you’re doing?  I agree that the Democratic Party looks like a bunch of ****heads right now. I would also say that the Republican party continues there long streak of looking like **** heads in this situation. As far as posters on this board though,  by far, the most idiotic and hypocritical comments in this thread, both in terms of quantity and magnitude, have come from you.Is that what you think you’re doing? By far, the most idiotic and hypocritical comments in this thread, both in terms of quantity and magnitude, have come from you.

[Kilmer17]

I love this.  What exactly have I been hypocritical about in this thread?  

[Fresh8686]

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.