Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bluerules009

Guilty until proven innocent

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

No, it’s because idiots like you would whine forever about the old white men being so mean to a woman. Not only that, but a woman is a lot better than a man knowing when another woman is lying. 

It is still a cowardly move. 

Do you have any studies that indicate that? It doesn’t matter. She doesn’t get a vote. She will be there as a paid assassin.

the committee members don’t care whether she is telling the truth. McConnell already announced that they are going to plow the nomination through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jackmormon said:

Do you have any studies that indicate that?

the committee members don’t care whether she is telling the truth. McConnell already announced that they are going to plow the nomination through.

Studies? Hahahahaha. You don’t know women very well do you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

lol. You don’t need to worry about idiots like us. We’re liberal white guys who aren’t going to vote with you. You need to worry about the other half of the population, i.e., women voters. It’s the optics of them grilling a woman that the old white men are worried about. You’ll be all over the old white guys tearing into her a la Anita Hill, but a lot of women won’t. 

No one tore up Anita Hill.  She was asked about her claims like any accuser.  Her only problems were her accusations were far from criminal and somewhat unbelievable.

Afterwards like I am sure Ford plans, Anita Hill made good money on the lecture circuit.  She also became an iconic fixture with no longterm damage.  While the man she accused has to put up with her allegations for life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

It is still a cowardly move. 

 

It is pretty cowardly to not be willing to face the accused.  To not be willing to have two cameras in the courtroom.   To not allow the accused to respond to your testimony or to be cross examined.  It is cowardly to prevent questions that address your previous statements and their contradictions.  It is pretty cowardly to not give a date and location of the place this occurred so you don't have to worry about any denial to your vague claims.

The fact she is scared of someone with a vagina questioning her is the least of her cowardly moves but pretty hilarious.   Guess she doesn't know she is justifying sexism in the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

No one tore up Anita Hill.  She was asked about her claims like any accuser.  Her only problems were her accusations were far from criminal and somewhat unbelievable.

Afterwards like I am sure Ford plans, Anita Hill made good money on the lecture circuit.  She also became an iconic fixture with no longterm damage.  While the man she accused has to put up with her allegations for life.

We remember those hearings very differently. I found her claims very believable.

Anita Hill graduated with honors from Yale Law School, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and has had a distinguished academic career. Her opinion of the damage done may differ from yours. 

Clarence Thomas seems to have done pretty well despite the accusations. He’s been the dimmest bulb on the SCOTUS for decades now. He doesn’t even need to speak. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

We remember those hearings very differently. I found her claims very believable.

Anita Hill graduated with honors from Yale Law School, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and has had a distinguished academic career. Her opinion of the damage done may differ from yours. 

Clarence Thomas seems to have done pretty well despite the accusations. He’s been the dimmest bulb on the SCOTUS for decades now. He doesn’t even need to speak. 

All the other women that worked for Clarence Thomas disagreed with Anita Hill and the character she was trying to portray. Nobody believed her, except the Dems who were against the Thomas nomination. I'm not surprised you believed her.

You believe she was beat up because her testimony an attempt at killing the Thomas nomination didn't work. So of course she got "beat up".

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

All the other women that worked for Clarence Thomas disagreed with Anita Hill and the character she was trying to portray. Nobody believed her, except the Dems who were against the Thomas nomination. I'm not surprised you believed her.

I’m not surprised you didn’t. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

No one tore up Anita Hill.  She was asked about her claims like any accuser.  Her only problems were her accusations were far from criminal and somewhat unbelievable.

Afterwards like I am sure Ford plans, Anita Hill made good money on the lecture circuit.  She also became an iconic fixture with no longterm damage.  While the man she accused has to put up with her allegations for life.

Your explanation would have to involve time travel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, pokebball said:

All the other women that worked for Clarence Thomas disagreed with Anita Hill and the character she was trying to portray. Nobody believed her, except the Dems who were against the Thomas nomination. I'm not surprised you believed her.

You believe she was beat up because her testimony an attempt at killing the Thomas nomination didn't work. So of course she got "beat up".

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, sean327 said:

So you're cool with the idea that it's ok to crush a person's reputation for life because of an accusation so full of holes that not even Flex Seal can prevent it from sinking?

Well, yeah. It's kind of the second amendment. Are you saying thete should be limits to speech when it is a woman accusing a man?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

 

Well, yeah. It's kind of the second amendment. Are you saying thete should be limits to speech when it is a woman accusing a man?

The second amendment? Sure, your big mouth spits out words like a Maschinengewehr 42V machine gun, but come on. Peaceful speech Trumps your idea of communicating with weapons!!! 😂🤪🤪

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

We remember those hearings very differently. I found her claims very believable.

Anita Hill graduated with honors from Yale Law School, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and has had a distinguished academic career. Her opinion of the damage done may differ from yours. 

Clarence Thomas seems to have done pretty well despite the accusations. He’s been the dimmest bulb on the SCOTUS for decades now. He doesn’t even need to speak. 

I hope your memory is better than Ms Ford’s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

We remember those hearings very differently. I found her claims very believable.

Anita Hill graduated with honors from Yale Law School, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and has had a distinguished academic career. Her opinion of the damage done may differ from yours. 

Clarence Thomas seems to have done pretty well despite the accusations. He’s been the dimmest bulb on the SCOTUS for decades now. He doesn’t even need to speak. 

You know you’re a hopeless partisan when you can’t even see the bullshit made up by your own party. Especially the ridiculously obvious stuff such as Anita Thrill and Ballsy Ford.  Both parties do it, some more than others and different types of it. But that’s why you’re known as a ‘shit depository’, because you lap up that BS whenever it presents itself to you. You’re like a little Pac-Man with a silly mask on your face chomping away at it. And if that’s ‘winning’ to you, then stay the course and never get tired of winning. Meanwhile, Trump will be doing different kind of winning and we’ll all live happily ever after.  😂😂🤣🤣😭😭😭😹😹

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

We remember those hearings very differently. I found her claims very believable.

Anita Hill graduated with honors from Yale Law School, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and has had a distinguished academic career. Her opinion of the damage done may differ from yours. 

Clarence Thomas seems to have done pretty well despite the accusations. He’s been the dimmest bulb on the SCOTUS for decades now. He doesn’t even need to speak. 

Just good OLD FASHIONED BIAS.  

During the same period relatively you were finding a while bunch of other women unbelievable.  But then they were accusing a democrat so that is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, happycamper said:

 

Well, yeah. It's kind of the second amendment. Are you saying thete should be limits to speech when it is a woman accusing a man?

The woman can say whatever she wants.  She certainly has that right

The media and responsible people should treat uncorroborated accusations with no evidence supporting them, for what it's worth.

If he was a democrat there wouldn't be any coverage of these allegations.  Just like there was little coverage of a New Jersey Senator on trial or a democratic political leader beating his wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is how Kavanaugh's allies knew the name of the accuser and were doing LinkedIn searches of her before the name went public.   Did he lie about not knowing who the accuser was while giving the info to his allies? 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...