Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
5076 messages in 124 discussions
Latest 1/25/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
826 messages in 15 discussions
Latest Nov-18 by ElDotardo
17319 messages in 771 discussions
Latest Nov-2 by Finkel Media (mahjong54)
*chuckle* I thought it might, and Carly provided the perfect accompaniment.
With P.C. comix fail . . .
Didn't see the hearings? Lindsey Graham sums things up clearly and forcefully...
Oh yeah!! "Anticipation" is the right word!!
I watched Kavanaugh's hissy fit too.
I think he shot himself in the foot with all his "the left are out to get me" bullshit.
I like Lindsay. But if there is the slightest chance that these women are telling the truth... then it makes all of them look bad.
Slightest chance? Is that the standard you apply down under? Up here we prefer 'innocent until proven guilty,' and to this point , not one shred of evidence has supported the allegations made against the choir boy nominee in the Left's orchestrated effort at character assassination. On the contrary, so called witnesses have refuted them.
Of course, the term 'kangaroo court' may have originated in Australia, eh?
If you are wondering how Dr. Ford could be wrong about #Kavanaugh - when she is “100% certain” he assaulted her - here are more than 250 examples of men who wrongly went to prison because a victim was “100% certain” of their attackers.
The evidence does not exist.
It's all he said/she said.
Does the burden of proof apply to the accusers?
Are they assumed to be telling the truth until proven to be lying?
It is not possible for Judge Kavanaugh to prove a negative.
Yes, it is he said/she said, however everyone of those Dr. Ford named as witnesses to her travail have refuted her. Every one.
Yes, in a system founded upon the principle, innocent until proven guilty, the accuser is tasked with proving their allegations.
The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth when the preponderance of evidence backs up their charges.