• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh.... What next?

What new accusations will be made?

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Fledermaus said:
Your daily return to announce you have no perjury... Sweet....
Click to expand...

You know, if you spent as much time with reading that article as you spent with trolling me and fantasizing about sucking my dick, you'd have that evidence of perjury now.

Some people will do anything to avoid educating themselves...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You know, if you spent as much time with reading that article as you spent with trolling me and fantasizing about sucking my dick, you'd have that evidence of perjury now.

Some people will do anything to avoid educating themselves...
Click to expand...

All that typing and none of it perjury. Thank you for your daily reminder you have nothing.
 
Logician Man said:
Evidently you missed his cry baby,petulant rant about the Clintons and payback.
Click to expand...
I would not want that baby trying my case. he is a little crying rich baby boy. and no he does not remember assaulting Ford, he was drunk... no way in hell any sane person would let him be scotus oh i forgot!!! conspiracy about the Clintons, Democrats and ford getting together to make this up now Really give me a break.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
A lie. The article is nothing but examples, and quite a few of them.
Click to expand...

If you can pull a statement which is supposedly "perjury" from that article, where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him," please do point it out.

(But the article uses hip, snarky language, so it must all be rock-solid . . .)
 
Harshaw said:
If you can pull a statement which is supposedly "perjury" from that article, where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him," please do point it out.

(But the article uses hip, snarky language, so it must all be rock-solid . . .)
Click to expand...

That is the crux of it.
 
Harshaw said:
If you can pull a statement which is supposedly "perjury" from that article, where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him," please do point it out.

(But the article uses hip, snarky language, so it must all be rock-solid . . .)
Click to expand...

If you and your batboy refuse to explain why you think what's being called perjury is actually not perjury, then you're nothing but a couple of useless trolls.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If you and your batboy refuse to explain why you think what's being called perjury is actually not perjury, then you're nothing but a couple of useless trolls.
Click to expand...

See, you're making the charge, so it's up to you to prove the charge.

You keep referring back to the article you posted, so I'll say again:

If you can pull a statement which is supposedly "perjury" from that article, where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him," please do point it out.

If you can't, then you have nothing.
 
plutonium said:
I would not want that baby trying my case. he is a little crying rich baby boy. and no he does not remember assaulting Ford, he was drunk... no way in hell any sane person would let him be scotus oh i forgot!!! conspiracy about the Clintons, Democrats and ford getting together to make this up now Really give me a break.
Click to expand...

Why would any accused man have to find out who made it up? That would go to proving innocence. Last I heard, our standard is higher than that, even if you don't like the President.
I think you may have a good list of suspects, but even still, I can't prove he, you, or me are innocent of Prof. Fords baseless in fact accusation.
Regards,
CP
 
Harshaw said:
See, you're making the charge, so it's up to you to prove the charge.
Click to expand...

Bull. Freaking. Crap. The charge comes from the article and you know it. I had nothing to do with it.

You keep referring back to the article you posted, so I'll say again:

If you can pull a statement which is supposedly "perjury" from that article, where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him," please do point it out.

If you can't, then you have nothing.
Click to expand...

You're just stalling. The article made at least half a dozen statements that demonstrate strong evidence of perjury.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Bull. Freaking. Crap. The charge comes from the article and you know it. I had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

You're the one making the claims in this thread.

You're just stalling. The article made at least half a dozen statements that demonstrate strong evidence of perjury.
Click to expand...

Then it should be no trouble at all for you to point out the ones where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him."

Can you do so? I'd love to see your idea of "strong evidence."
 
Harshaw said:
You're the one making the claims in this thread.
Click to expand...

First it was a "charge," now it's "claims." Lame tap dance.

Then it should be no trouble at all for you to point out the ones where the article's evidence that it's "perjury" amounts to more than "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him."
Click to expand...
Well, now you're making a claim, aren't you? That every statement in the article amounts to "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him."

It "should be no trouble at all" for you to point out those. Fair is fair, isn't it?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
First it was a "charge," now it's "claims." Lame tap dance.
Click to expand...

Yes, your quibbling over words rather than putting your money where your mouth is is indeed a lame tape dance.


Well, now you're making a claim, aren't you? That every statement in the article amounts to "we don't believe him" or "we disagree with him."

It "should be no trouble at all" for you to point out those. Fair is fair, isn't it?
Click to expand...

ALL of them which point to his statements under oath, which is required for "perjury."

Show me one which doesn't.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, your quibbling over words rather than putting your money where your mouth is is indeed a lame tape dance.
Click to expand...
Clearly you're in the wrong job if you hate "quibbling over words." Hey, don't take it out on me if your bosses (rightly) won't let you argue in front of the bench.


ALL of them which point to his statements under oath, which is required for "perjury."

Show me one which doesn't.
Click to expand...

Show me one that does. It's your claim.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Clearly you're in the wrong job if you hate "quibbling over words." Hey, don't take it out on me if your bosses (rightly) won't let you argue in front of the bench.


Show me one that does. It's your claim.
Click to expand...

OK. You have nothing. Dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom