Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is pure nonsense identity politics. If you can't recognize this, it's not worth talking to you. You have pigeonholed your own brain cells.

Since the day Trump won the election, reports of FBI/DOJ/CIA high level operatives attempting a coup d'etat have constantly surfaced. The evidence is overwhelming. Comey, McCabe, Yates, Page, Strozk are just a few of the people involved who have been removed from office. There definitely is a lingering "stench" in the higher echelons of intelligentsia.

But by your addiction to identity politics, if the culprit is a woman, then Trump is a misogynist. If the traitor is Jewish, then Trump is anti-semitic. If the felon is Asian, then Trump is a racist.

Oh the evil white man! Only he is guilty of crimes. All others are innocent, by definition. Thus zeek's justice system is no more blind, it only seeks out the white man. Careful what you wish for zeek, one day they will turn on you too.

That's a whole lot of nonsense. You're projecting your own identity politics on me. Trump unlike any president in memory uses hate and fear rhetorical language to stir the passions of his followers. That's the definition of demagoguery. With your warning to me it seems like you're trying to use a fear tactic too. By following guys like Lee and Trump you're learning from the masters.

[awareness]

There's obviously a stench in Washington, and it ain't Rosenstein.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's obviously a stench in Washington, and it ain't Rosenstein.

That's why it is code for 2,000 pounds of dirty laundry.

[zeek]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

Brett obviously believes that men should have a right to control women's bodies. Which is why the pubbies want him so bad cuz that's what they too believe --> Roe v. Wade ; but not controlling men's bodies, who produce unwanted pregnancies, by not wearing a condom.

Let's just blame the women ... they are lesser than men. They aren't even a complete human. They're missing the necessary body part that men have, who are whole humans.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...share_facebook

By all means rush this guy into the Supreme Court as soon as possible to rule on the law of the land for the rest of his natural life before we find anything more about his sleazy past. What do you say, Merrick B. Garland?

Let's put this into perspective:

1. He has gone through this process of background checks 6 times. One would think that the FBI would have uncovered something from friends, family, neighbors and coworkers during these investigations.

2. This woman has given 3 witnesses to help corroborate her account and all 3 have denied having any knowledge of the party, Kavanaugh, or the alleged incident.

3. This woman has not provided any physical evidence (ripped blouse, photograph of her afterwards, DNA, corroborating witness, etc).

4. Even though this took place before digital cameras and smart phones we could be very confident there would have been a lot of pictures taken at this party, but she can't tell us when or where it took place. If we knew that we could search through these photos and help corroborate this.

5. Kavanaugh has an alibi for most of the time frame indicated by this woman since he was out of town on trips with his family. Since she does not have access to his calendar it would make sense that she refuses to give a date if it is a false account.

Even so, they are going to let her speak at this hearing. According to the Bible you should not accept an accusation against an elder except at the hand of two or three witnesses. I agree that at this point she needs to be heard, but I also feel that this appears to be the lowest and ugliest desperate attempt to smear someone by the Democrats.

6. The one thing this woman has referred to is a man who has previously written a book about being a drunk at these parties and doing shameful things. This was not some "revelation" but something that was public knowledge. It appears to me at this moment based on the very poor case made, that this is an attempt to smear Kavanaugh based on the bad behavior of other students at his high school.

7. Democrat who put this forward waited until the eve of the vote and didn't show it to anyone else, holding it for 6 weeks or longer. That seems to be a blatant attempt at delaying the process.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's put this into perspective:

1. He has gone through this process of background checks 6 times. One would think that the FBI would have uncovered something from friends, family, neighbors and coworkers during these investigations.

2. This woman has given 3 witnesses to help corroborate her account and all 3 have denied having any knowledge of the party, Kavanaugh, or the alleged incident.

3. This woman has not provided any physical evidence (ripped blouse, photograph of her afterwards, DNA, corroborating witness, etc).

4. Even though this took place before digital cameras and smart phones we could be very confident there would have been a lot of pictures taken at this party, but she can't tell us when or where it took place. If we knew that we could search through these photos and help corroborate this.

5. Democrat who put this forward waited until the eve of the vote and didn't show it to anyone else, holding it for 6 weeks or longer. That seems to be a blatant attempt at delaying the process.

Even so, they are going to let her speak at this hearing. According to the Bible you should not accept an accusation against an elder except at the hand of two or three witnesses. I agree that at this point she needs to be heard, but I also feel that this appears to be the lowest and ugliest desperate attempt to smear someone by the Democrats.

6. The one thing this woman has referred to is a man who has previously written a book about being a drunk at these parties and doing shameful things. This was not some "revelation" but something that was public knowledge. It appears to me at this moment based on the very poor case made, that this is an attempt to smear Kavanaugh based on the bad behavior of other students at his high school.

Your "perspective" doesn't include recognizing "this woman" as a person with a name. Are you referring to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or has someone else come forward with complaints about Kavanaugh?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your "perspective" doesn't include recognizing "this woman" as a person with a name. Are you referring to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or has someone else come forward with complaints about Kavanaugh?

I identified her as the one scheduled to testify before a hearing on Thursday, obviously Dr. Ford. If you look at the evidence it appears to be nothing but a false witness. If that is the case then are you allowing liars and cheats to come forward one at a time to railroad the legislative process?

We don't need two rapes to disqualify him, one is good enough. But if they sat on this bogus claim for 6 weeks and then are able to delay the process for 2 weeks then a second false claim can easily delay it for another 2 weeks.

So I stand by my original position -- at this point this woman should be heard and her claim fully investigated. If it turns out to be dirty tricks by the Democrats all involved should be prosecuted and go to jail for slander. Then this case can be a precedent that these hearings do not allow anyone to make a charge without at least 2 witnesses (physical evidence is a witness).