 |
You've heard the old saying about if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?Quote:
I'm not a liberal.
Once again, the "I'm not a liberal" person can hardly wait to come to the defense of Mr. Obama while not hesitating to slander Kavanaugh. That's why I'm convinced you are 100% liberal. It's plainly apparent.Quote:
And I never dated Obama but did encounter far too many drunks like Kavanaugh during my dating years. He'd been drinking (to relax....) before his questioning.
It's not slander if it's true!
And when have I defended Obama????
what you have to decide here is not what is truth, but what are lies and misleading statements
Referring to Kavanaugh as a drunk.Quote:
It's not slander if it's true!
Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.Quote:
And when have I defended Obama????
His attitude and behavior in front of the Senate and on live TV certainly suggested that. Or emotional instability.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.Quote:
Your entire line of argument that smoking pot is great but drinking alcohol is bad was a response to the "Obama smoked pot" statement from earlier.
He did some excessive partying as a young person. If everyone who did that is a drunk, then most people are drunks. Sorry, but to call him a "drunk" is ridiculous.Quote:
We have enough factual accounts and his own testimony to call him a drunk.
What? Her whole point was that smoking pot is better than getting drunk. Pot smokers, she said, "relax", but drunks get aggressive towards women. I have no idea where you read that she did the differentiating you are referring to.Quote:
I think she was quite specific differentiating between drinkers, those that consume, and drunks those that consume to access. Applies to pot as well.
Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.
OK. You have had some experiences, so Kavanaugh must be guilty? Is that how it works now? Thank goodness we don't use that system of justice in America.Quote:
Perhaps this is one of those areas my experience gives me a great deal of insight into.
I assure you that you weren't the only one who partied as a young person.
Dope heads depend upon everyone thinking that smoking dope is O.K......it is not O.K. and despite what the idiotic states that have passed legalization think, in the MAJORITY of states in the United States, smoking dope is still ILLEGAL! So, dope smoking is not O.K. and it does not make you a better person....in fact, it doesn't make you BETTER at anything, at all. And, people that smoke dope SMELL TO HIGH HEAVEN WITH A FUNK THAT IS UNSHAKEABLE! Good lord, do dope heads stink with a particularly perculiar rancid "stank".
Go smoke dope and it will be found in your system several weeks down the road, especially in you hair follicles. We bust these idiots all the time in my industry using the "Hair Test"......Now, have a drink today, and you can not tell if you drank tomorrow......not defending drinking but facts are as they are.
I said I had insights not a crystal ball. It should disturb you that the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything? One would think we take the time to get the truth out before we move someone to such a position. Now I realize the presumption of innocence in the rule of law, but I do not recognize the obstruction of pursuit of ANY evidence, for or against anyone.
You got something against getting the facts of the matter?
Talaniman: What is "insi"?
Clarify please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Talaniman: No, you said it right, for some reason this computer cut-off you words.....strange!
No, I agree with you: Facts do matter and ALL the evidence needs presentation.....that is the way it was designed to work and that is the way it should work, our System of Justice....it is sacred and should be preserved at all costs.....no compromises.
That's why we need to dump this dufus. Not easy but like fishing, give him enough line to tire hisself out then reel him in. You fish?
Were you out of the country when the Senate held its hearing on Kavanaugh?Quote:
the WH squelched any real investigations to get a SCOTUS pick through. Why are you okay with that? If evidence is not looked at in the first place how do YOU claim him innocent of anything?
He is innocent until proven guilty. You have it backwards. Besides, the testimony against him was total nonsense, just like this recent NY Times article.
We won't know until a credible finding of fact is launched. Foolish and naïve to think the Kavanaugh hearings were credible, more a half a$$ thrown together appearance of one. Maybe it passed your sniff test, but you're still holding your nose from 2016, but it stunk up the whole system.
Innocent until proven guilty is a great law principle, but if you stop the process of proving then you break the law. Criminals use to whack the witnesses, or scare them off, but this dufus just calls them names and ignores them. He has plenty of appointed sycophants to do his dirty work.
So Hillary is fine because she when through a hearing, but Kavanaugh went through a hearing and is not fine. I wonder if the fact that one is a dem and one a repub has anything to do with your sense of legalities and fairness?
More of you're false equivalency arguments? The Clintons and Hillary in particular went through decades of repub mudslinging and investigations. 6 repub congressional hearing into Bengahzi and you got nothing? Come on JL, Kavanaugh had one lousy half a$$ investigation that the dufus squelched, and YOU call that equal?
You wingers crack me up sometimes.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 PM. |