End of #metoo

The Pheasant2 · 02-10-2018 12:44pm

leggo wrote: »

And, even then, when it comes to #MeToo, what I’ve personally seen is a lot of people who’ve been forced to confess for past crimes that had gone on so long unreported (Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Bill Cosby etc). I don’t see evidence of these mysterious false claims people seem to fear so much, it’s actually been a pretty successful campaign from what I’ve seen. So no, I’m not particularly concerned with the method that makes rapists face overdue justice if it works. Why would someone be against that? If something on Twitter can achieve something the justice system itself couldn’t for decades, does that not point to flaws in said system? And why would someone be concerned with protecting said flawed system if not for their own interests?

Who did Louis CK rape?

This is certainly an issue within #Metoo, this blurring of the lines between crimes - anyone found to have commited any kind of sexual impropriety is de facto lumped in with actual rapists e.g. Cosby.
What Louis CK did was weird and seedy (and I am not condoning it) but it was consensual; and to put him in there with the rest is insulting to the victims of actual rape.

Discodog · 02-10-2018 12:44pm

The problem is more that he lied about his past. He should of been open about it.

He cried about his 10 year old but no one questioned why he was discussing a sexual allegation with a 10 year old.

meeeeh · 02-10-2018 12:56pm

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Who did Louis CK rape?
What Louis CK did was weird and seedy (and I am not condoning it) but it was consensual; and to put him in there with the rest is insulting to the victims of actual rape.

It was not consensual, if it was consensual he wouldn't be in trouble. Yes there are different levels of improper or criminal behaviour but what Louis CK did was total abuse of power. I don't think it deserves any kind of custodial sentence but it is very similar to rape in one way - it is all about power. So Luis CK shares the space with all above using his status to get away with stuff nobody should get away with.

02-10-2018 1:14pm

meeeeh wrote:

It was not consensual, if it was consensual he wouldn't be in trouble. Yes there are different levels of improper or criminal behaviour but what Louis CK did was total abuse of power. I don't think it deserves any kind of custodial sentence but it is very similar to rape in one way - it is all about power. So Luis CK shares the space with all above using his status to get away with stuff nobody should get away with.

Abuse of power? FFS. Do pretty girls abuse their power when they pick and choose to use their looks to get things? Does a rich man abuse his power when a gold digger agrees to have sex with him for financial gain?

A balding, ginger comedian using his celebrity to manage to have sex /sexual encounters with women that would be usually out of his league is not an abuse of power once the women consent. From what I have read, the times when consent wasnt given, nothing happened.

meeeeh · 02-10-2018 1:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Abuse of power? FFS. Do pretty girls abuse their power when they pick and choose to use their looks to get things? Does a rich man abuse his power when a gold digger agrees to have sex with him for financial gain?

A balding, ginger comedian using his celebrity to manage to have sex /sexual encounters with women that would be usually out of his league is not an abuse of power once the women consent. From what I have read, the times when consent wasnt given, nothing happened.

So when someone jumps in front of you and drops their pants, the consent was given because you didn't have time to say no? Or because you were too surprised to say no? Would you tell random women I'm going to start **** now, I hope you don't mind and proceed? Would you think it is ok to do that? Do you really think us women are just dying too a celebrity drop their pants in front of us?

The Pheasant2 · 02-10-2018 1:22pm

meeeeh wrote: »

It was not consensual, if it was consensual he wouldn't be in trouble. Yes there are different levels of improper or criminal behaviour but what Louis CK did was total abuse of power. I don't think it deserves any kind of custodial sentence but it is very similar to rape in one way - it is all about power. So Luis CK shares the space with all above using his status to get away with stuff nobody should get away with.

I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous conflation and, as I said, insulting to actual rape victims.

He asked people if he could take his dick out and masturbate in front of them.
Yes he took advantage of situations in which the balance of power was tipped towards his end. Yes his actions are reprehensible and to be condemned in my eyes. But he is not a rapist.

tretorn · 02-10-2018 1:23pm

Discodog wrote: »

The problem is more that he lied about his past. He should of been open about it.

He cried about his 10 year old but no one questioned why he was discussing a sexual allegation with a 10 year old.

His ten year is probably being jeered in school because her father has been accused of being a gang rapist.
How on earth can he avoid not talking about this with his children.

meeeeh · 02-10-2018 1:24pm

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous conflation and, as I said, insulting to actual rape victims.

He asked people if he could take his dick out and masturbate in front of them.
Yes he took advantage of situations in which the balance of power was tipped towards his end. Yes his actions are reprehensible and to be condemned in my eyes. But he is not a rapist.

Nobody called him a rapist, you bolded two words to created the impression he was called a rapist but anyone with three brain cells who read the actual post would not come to that conclusion.

And don't go on about rape victims, they are often mentioned only as way of dismissing completely relevant grievances. What is actually insulting to rape victims is to use them to excuse other sexual harassment.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 02-10-2018 1:27pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Abuse of power? FFS. Do pretty girls abuse their power when they pick and choose to use their looks to get things? Does a rich man abuse his power when a gold digger agrees to have sex with him for financial gain?

A balding, ginger comedian using his celebrity to manage to have sex /sexual encounters with women that would be usually out of his league is not an abuse of power once the women consent. From what I have read, the times when consent wasnt given, nothing happened.

You are not taking into account his power over them. Sure he wasn’t their employer but he could probably make sure they never worked in that industry again, which is the same kind of power. That’s how Weinstein worked. He never said “she refused me favours” but “she’s difficult to work with”.

Surely you don’t think that bosses should strip and **** off in front of terrified interns.

I’m not pc in general but feminists are correct on that one, power can overcome supposed consent, so it’s not really consent.

tretorn · 02-10-2018 1:32pm

Seeminly Ford said she didnt want to go public with the allegation because she didnt want the publicity.

But then after she discusses what happened with her therapist and her husband the next call she puts in is to the media.

There are so many inconsistencies in her story and no one to coborrate it. She mentions a friend as a witness but the friend has stated that she never met Kavanaugh and cant recall anything about the party where this is supposed to have happened.

We are now at a stage where a mans life can be totally derailed by an unsubstantiated allegation going back over thirty years. Kavanaughs reputation is ruined and its likely that his fitness as a father could now be investigated too if the FBI are looking into this complaint. How safe are his own children if he is accused of trying to rip the clothes off a teenager.

This is where we are at at now.

The Pheasant2 · 02-10-2018 1:34pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Nobody called him a rapist, you bolded two words to created the impression he was called a rapist but anyone with three brain cells who read the actual post would not come to that conclusion.

And don't go on about rape victims, they are often mentioned only as way of dismissing completely relevant grievances. What is actually insulting to victims of rape is to use them to excuse other sexual harassment.

He was lumped in with actual rapists in the same breath with no distiction given. If you had no prior knowledge of who any of those people were, that statement would lead you believe that he had done the same as Weinstein or Cosby, which he didn't.

And who's dismissing anything? At every step I've said what he did was despicable and fully deserving of condemnation, so don't dare try and put that implication on my words.

Outlaw Pete · 02-10-2018 2:24pm

tretorn wrote: »

We are now at a stage where a mans life can be totally derailed by an unsubstantiated allegation going back over thirty years. Kavanaughs reputation is ruined and its likely that his fitness as a father could now be investigated too if the FBI are looking into this complaint. How safe are his own children if he is accused of trying to rip the clothes off a teenager.

This is where we are at at now.

Precisely and if they get their way now, then they'll do it again. They have effectively weaponised sexual assault allegations and so whenever they don't like a candidate or a political appointee down the line, they can just drag up another story of how that person perhaps maybe spiked and raped a few girls as they were seen walking by a punch bowl at a party thirty years ago.

This woman's testimony was farcical.........

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1046765743008862208

End of the day the liberal left have achieved their aim even if Kavanugh gets the job as they have stuck a stick in the spokes of the Trump administration and associated the rape of young girls with someone he endorsed, and that's all they really wanted to do. These people care very very little about genuine victims of such crimes. They just use these crimes, and allegations that they took place, as a way of stamping their feet and getting attention. It works as society abhors such crimes but it's beginning to lose a little power as people are slowly but surely starting to see much of it for just what it is: crying wolf.

Southwest Alaska · 02-10-2018 2:33pm

meeeeh wrote: »

It was not consensual, if it was consensual he wouldn't be in trouble. Yes there are different levels of improper or criminal behaviour but what Louis CK did was total abuse of power. I don't think it deserves any kind of custodial sentence but it is very similar to rape in one way - it is all about power. So Luis CK shares the space with all above using his status to get away with stuff nobody should get away with.

So if something is all about power then it is automatically horrific? If someone wants a promotion for more power should we view that as a crime?

suicide_circus · 02-10-2018 2:46pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a1dtcZrPWY

I know he's a mad yoke but just give that video 5 minutes

2 men have come forward saying it was them not Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted this woman

monkeybutter · 02-10-2018 2:59pm

Ignoring the likelihood or not that this happened, for a judge, used to this process of questioning, did he not come off as unhinged? He was on the verge of crying on a constant basis, didn't seem in anyway logical, didn't answer questions with any authority.

Was he stressed out being in the public eye? Will he not be for the rest of his tenure?

He was bizarre.

She was way more credible, whether coached or not.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 3:05pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Ignoring the likelihood or not that this happened, for a judge, used to this process of questioning, did he not come off as unhinged? He was on the verge of crying on a constant basis, didn't seem in anyway logical, didn't answer questions with any authority.

Was he stressed out being in the public eye? Will he not be for the rest of his tenure?

He was bizarre.

She was way more credible, whether coached or not.

He also perjured himself several times. That should be disqualification enough.

Outlaw Pete · 02-10-2018 3:15pm

Absolute gimp in that video 13mins in...........

Bad enough young Irish girls carrying placards with that written on it but for a young man in western society to wear a t-shirt with that emblazoned on it shows the effect that the poison spewed by the radical feminists over recent years has had.

James Brown · 02-10-2018 3:16pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The highly likely acceptance of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would appear to mark the end of #metoo.

Why?

Because a lot of people sided with him against what they saw as what was turning in to a witch hunt against men. Even liberal women friends of mine were undecided on this one after the hearings.

That and the movement made it even more easy for accusations to be made that could ruin someone's career and life even if those accusations were completely false.

Then you had the backlash against actors from Hollywood (Liam Neeson for example) for merely suggesting, whilst there are many genuine cases of sexual assault, there was a witch hunt against men and it was getting out of control. Guilty until proven innocent.

I'm glad Kavanaugh will join the Supreme Court even though I oppose his politics because it has put an end this "movement".

It's not a witch hunt. Sure people have motives but he's either a scumbag or he isn't.
As regards #metoo and (I've a black friend or know women who agree etc.) It's much needed. There would be no subtle 'time to stop grabbing girls arses for a laugh' (or maybe more?) movement. It had to boil over to begin. If it's a little full on/over the top, it needs to be. I've witnessed decades of women being second class citizens and having to know their place. It's long over due IMO.
We are seeing what we've been shown to be normal, get attacked. Well that's because what we were led to believe was normal had an inherent level of scumbaggery.

meeeeh · 02-10-2018 3:18pm

Southwest Alaska wrote: »

So if something is all about power then it is automatically horrific? If someone wants a promotion for more power should we view that as a crime?

You are right getting away with **** in front of stunned women is exactly the same as getting a promotion.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 02-10-2018 3:32pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolute gimp in that video 13mins in...........

Bad enough young Irish girls carrying placards with that written on it but for a young man in western society to wear a t-shirt with that emblazoned on it shows the effect that the poison spewed by the radical feminists over recent years has had.

It's always a certain type who engage in this behaviour.

You're not going to see members of the college American football team walking around with that shirt.

The male fem types use it as a way of getting in with women. They're only objective is trying to get laid.

Southwest Alaska · 02-10-2018 3:43pm

meeeeh wrote: »

You are right getting away with **** in front of stunned women is exactly the same as getting a promotion.

You are right, going for interviews should be illegal punishable by the death penalty.

meeeeh · 02-10-2018 3:53pm

Southwest Alaska wrote: »

You are right, going for interviews should be illegal punishable by the death penalty.

Do you think it possible that you are not very good at detecting sarcasm? But just make sure you understand, there is plenty of research that points out rape (and other sexual crimes) are about power, control, abuse not about desire. I'm too lazy to post links on the phone but Google is your friend if you don't believe me. If you think that's comparable to promotion I really don't know what to say.

professore · 02-10-2018 3:53pm

Malayalam wrote: »

So far 1 million bucks in a go fund me account.

I said clearly that I have not decided who I believe. Anyone can lie under oath.

Some sweet book deals in there. The kudos of being a strong brave woman and celebrated for it. Also the pathological hatred of Trump and obstructing anything to do with him would be reward enough for many. Bear in mind it is rumoured that Kavanaugh will want to overturn Roe vs Wade.

I'm not saying she is lying but there are plenty of possible reasons. Also it could be mistaken identity. There is literally no one who can even corroborate she was ever at the party. And Kavanaugh has 60 signatures from women supporting him. Strip away the emotions and bull**** and there is nothing to prove his guilt other than her word.

02-10-2018 3:56pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

Surely you donâ€™t think that bosses should strip and **** off in front of terrified interns.

Because that's exactly what I said......

professore · 02-10-2018 4:02pm

leggo wrote: »

Is this the first ever sexual assault story you've followed? How do you conclusively prove someone took their dick out without having a camera ready at the exact moment it happened? This is why it's so difficult to convict people, why so few people come forward to report incidents and why there's perhaps an over-correcting trend towards believing accusers, hence stuff like #IBelieveHer trending.

It's mental like, a bit of perspective is needed. A lot of lads feel hard done by because of trial by social media, and that's fair enough I feel similarly, but they fail to realise that the system is already massively skewed towards rapists and people who commit these crimes yet have no interest in using their time to come up with solutions to that. How do you look at this situation and think, "Nope, let's keep the rapist-friendly status quo in place and do nothing"? It's so weird and creepy tbh. That could be your sister/wife/girlfriend/female friend one day who's begging to be believed, if god forbid this happens to them, are you going to give them a spiel about 'he said, she said'?!

I'm happy to listen to any solution you might have. However anything you say above about rapists can be said of anyone accused of any crime whatsoever. It's taken us thousands of years to get to the legal system we have, and it's about as good as you can get when humans and dishonesty is involved. Otherwise you have kangaroo courts and "give him a fair trial and then shoot him" type situations.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:04pm

tretorn wrote: »

Seeminly Ford said she didnt want to go public with the allegation because she didnt want the publicity.

But then after she discusses what happened with her therapist and her husband the next call she puts in is to the media.

There are so many inconsistencies in her story and no one to coborrate it. She mentions a friend as a witness but the friend has stated that she never met Kavanaugh and cant recall anything about the party where this is supposed to have happened.

We are now at a stage where a mans life can be totally derailed by an unsubstantiated allegation going back over thirty years. Kavanaughs reputation is ruined and its likely that his fitness as a father could now be investigated too if the FBI are looking into this complaint. How safe are his own children if he is accused of trying to rip the clothes off a teenager.

This is where we are at at now.

And this is the problem here.
He (Kavanaugh) has not been found guilty of anything. The hearing is just that, it is not a trial and no matter what happens he will not be convicted of anything by the time the senate vote happens.
In the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, and the fact that this "allegation" is timed to be released just before the GOP are slated to lose the senate in the mid terms is very suspicious.

The "allegation" is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and quite frankly from reading the testimony from both parties, farcical to associate Kavanaugh with.

I understand the need to provide support to genuine rape/assault victims but you cannot label a man as a rapist based solely on an allegation. If that was the case then this could happen to anyone, career and life ruined on a spurious vague allegation.

professore · 02-10-2018 4:05pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's not a witch hunt. Sure people have motives but he's either a scumbag or he isn't.
As regards #metoo and (I've a black friend or know women who agree etc.) It's much needed. There would be no subtle 'time to stop grabbing girls arses for a laugh' (or maybe more?) movement. It had to boil over to begin. If it's a little full on/over the top, it needs to be. I've witnessed decades of women being second class citizens and having to know their place. It's long over due IMO.
We are seeing what we've been shown to be normal, get attacked. Well that's because what we were led to believe was normal had an inherent level of scumbaggery.

So the solution is KKK style justice? We've worked hard to get to where we are today, finally the legal remedies are EQUALLY AVAILABLE to everyone, so let's use them!

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:05pm

professore wrote: »

I'm happy to listen to any solution you might have. However anything you say above about rapists can be said of anyone accused of any crime whatsoever. It's taken us thousands of years to get to the legal system we have, and it's about as good as you can get when humans and dishonesty is involved. Otherwise you have kangaroo courts and "give him a fair trial and then shoot him" type situations.

And we already have this, when uneducated mobs ignore the decision of the courts (see the rugby players recently, they were found not guilty but the angry mob already had them convicted on social media and despite the not guilty verdict they were still shamed out of their jobs).

Franz Von Peppercorn · 02-10-2018 4:05pm

professore wrote: »

So the solution is KKK style justice? We've worked hard to get to where we are today, finally the legal remedies are EQUALLY AVAILABLE to everyone, so let's use them!

The KKK, eh. I see what you did there.

professore · 02-10-2018 4:07pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Ignoring the likelihood or not that this happened, for a judge, used to this process of questioning, did he not come off as unhinged? He was on the verge of crying on a constant basis, didn't seem in anyway logical, didn't answer questions with any authority.

Was he stressed out being in the public eye? Will he not be for the rest of his tenure?

He was bizarre.

She was way more credible, whether coached or not.

I agree with you except the last sentence. Kavanaugh isn't fit to be a supreme court judge whether this incident actually happened or not. I think his loss of composure made him more credible. I'd be f**king angry if I was accused wrongly of something like this too, not calm and collected.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:07pm

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolute gimp in that video 13mins in...........

Bad enough young Irish girls carrying placards with that written on it but for a young man in western society to wear a t-shirt with that emblazoned on it shows the effect that the poison spewed by the radical feminists over recent years has had.

That shirt is disgusting.
I cannot comment what I would like to about the wearer, as I do not wish to receive moderation.

professore · 02-10-2018 4:07pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He also perjured himself several times. That should be disqualification enough.

Has he? Examples please.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:08pm

ELM327 wrote: »

And this is the problem here.
He (Kavanaugh) has not been found guilty of anything. The hearing is just that, it is not a trial and no matter what happens he will not be convicted of anything by the time the senate vote happens.
In the eyes of the law he is an innocent man, and the fact that this "allegation" is timed to be released just before the GOP are slated to lose the senate in the mid terms is very suspicious.

The "allegation" is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and quite frankly from reading the testimony from both parties, farcical to associate Kavanaugh with.

I understand the need to provide support to genuine rape/assault victims but you cannot label a man as a rapist based solely on an allegation. If that was the case then this could happen to anyone, career and life ruined on a spurious vague allegation.

You're right, he wasn't on trial. It was a job interview. One he failed spectacularly. Not only through his belligerence and evasiveness but also his several perjuries. He is not fit to sit on the supreme court.

Southwest Alaska · 02-10-2018 4:08pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you think it possible that you are not very good at detecting sarcasm? But just make sure you understand, there is plenty of research that points out rape (and other sexual crimes) are about power, control, abuse not about desire. I'm too lazy to post links on the phone but Google is your friend if you don't believe me. If you think that's comparable to promotion I really don't know what to say.

I think it's possible you can't follow sound logical reaesining so deflect with so called sarcasm.

I believe it is a generalisation to say rape is about power, in some cases maybe, in some cases maybe not.

Why should a crime be treated as more severe if it is motivated by power?

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:09pm

professore wrote: »

I agree with you except the last sentence. Kavanaugh isn't fit to be a supreme court judge whether this incident actually happened or not. I think his loss of composure made him more credible. I'd be f**king angry if I was accused wrongly of something like this too, not calm and collected.

+1
I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.

Kavanaugh is a great judge and will make a great member of the SCOTUS.
This will (assuming he is - as the numbers look like - nominated and confirmed) be a great fillip for the Trump presidency. A lot of evangelicals voted Trump based solely on the SC.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:10pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You're right, he wasn't on trial. It was a job interview. One he failed spectacularly. Not only through his belligerence and evasiveness but also his several perjuries. He is not fit to sit on the supreme court.

I'd be angrier and less composed than he was if I was falsely accused of something too.

It's not a "job interview" as no interview process exists for the SCOTUS, you're nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by congress.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:11pm

professore wrote: »

Has he? Examples please.

I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI

BBFAN · 02-10-2018 4:12pm

ELM327 wrote: »

And we already have this, when uneducated mobs ignore the decision of the courts (see the rugby players recently, they were found not guilty but the angry mob already had them convicted on social media and despite the not guilty verdict they were still shamed out of their jobs).

Tbf they were shamed out of their jobs because they were general scumbags, whether guilty or not.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:12pm

professore wrote: »

Has he? Examples please.

2 examples here.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

There are more. He was also asked if he had watched Dr Fords testimony. he replied he hadn't. He had.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:13pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI

You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:14pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

2 examples here.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-experts-and-yale-friends-believe-kavanaugh-committed-perjury/

There are more. He was also asked if he had watched Dr Fords testimony. he replied he hadn't. He had.

Those are basing his "perjury" on the opinions of one or two others, and a definition from Urban Dictionary.

Hardly what they teach you in Harvard as constituting evidence!

professore · 02-10-2018 4:14pm

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.

Kavanaugh is a great judge and will make a great member of the SCOTUS.
This will (assuming he is - as the numbers look like - nominated and confirmed) be a great fillip for the Trump presidency. A lot of evangelicals voted Trump based solely on the SC.

I know absolutely nothing about the background. I watched both testimonies and Kavanaugh came across as a massive nerd who wouldn't know what to do with a woman, and Ford came across as someone who believes she was genuinely sexually assaulted by him. I can't decide who is telling the truth or who is lying. So the only thing left is the evidence, which there is zero.

Kavanaugh has already been investigated by the FBI 7 times in his career as part of the vetting process for various positions he has held. If they haven't found anything by now they never will.

Of course we have the same trial by media here but in our case we make innocent scouts suffer for it : https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/scouting-ireland-funding-suspended-until-board-replaced-zappone-announces-1.3643676

CruelCoin · 02-10-2018 4:15pm

professore wrote: »

I agree with you except the last sentence. Kavanaugh isn't fit to be a supreme court judge whether this incident actually happened or not. I think his loss of composure made him more credible. I'd be f**king angry if I was accused wrongly of something like this too, not calm and collected.

ELM327 wrote: »

+1
I'd be shouting and angry too if I was falsely accused while going for a "massive promotion" like Kavanaugh is.

A lot of the poor temperament claims stem from his reactions to such skillfull questioning as: "do you like beer?" "Have you ever been drunk in college?".

A lot of those questions are nothing more than character assasination, and had no place in such a hearing.
I'd be pissed, and flipping tables, not just making sarcastic comments.

That said, it was Antonin Scalia that said in one of his interviews that a majority of the time in the Supreme Court is spent with boring **** like copyright and tax law.

If repetition in questions is going to exasperate you, then maybe the Supreme Court isn't for him.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:15pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Those are basing his "perjury" on the opinions of one or two others, and a definition from Urban Dictionary.

Hardly what they teach you in Harvard as constituting evidence!

He was under oath. He is expected to tell the truth. He didn't.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:15pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.

Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:17pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I think "oh no not gmail" should be tracked down by IP and subpoenaed. Clearly he was present at the time of the alleged incident and therefore must testify at the hearing and co-operate with the FBI

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You should at least wait until i have replied before dismissing what i think. It would stop you looking like an idiot.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He was under oath. He is expected to tell the truth. He didn't.

How do you know he is not telling the truth? Conclusively now, not just because you want to believe Ford without any evidence

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:17pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.

LOL. Criticises me for name calling by doing exactly that.

ohnonotgmail · 02-10-2018 4:18pm

ELM327 wrote: »

How do you know he is not telling the truth? Conclusively now, not just because you want to believe Ford without any evidence

None of the questions i mentioned were directly to do with ford.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:18pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

LOL. Criticises me for name calling by doing exactly that.

That's funny, there's about the same evidence of name calling in my post as there is against Kavanaugh... NONE.

point to any name calling here:

ELM327 wrote: »

Hmm. I really thought that someone like you would attempt to conceal their inability to debate seriously and not resort to name calling a little longer.

ELM327 · 02-10-2018 4:19pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

None of the questions i mentioned were directly to do with ford.

Are you posting on behalf of Ford? You're doing a great job of dodging direct questions.

Do you like beer?

End of #metoo

Comments