"You're accused-PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT." Thanks Democrats. Thanks a lot.

[MrShangles]

Not convinced "conservatives" are any different.

And his life won't be "ruined" by this. He'll be just as rich, just as powerful as before. Very likely he's going to be confirmed as well.

This isn't a criminal trial, it's a confirmation hearing to one of the highest positions in our government.

And still no proof of anything, but his name will be forever tarnished


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Luckyone]

Now, all that matters is the "seriousness of the accusation"...NOT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE/PROOF, and the "burden of proof" is on the ACCUSED.

Thanks DEMOCRATS.


You managed to bring STALINIST METHODS into the US..better than Stalin EVER DREAMED POSSIBLE....


View attachment 67241471

Incredible, the kettle calling the pot black.

It is you (Republicans) that made lying into a profession practiced 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Trump is now close to 5000 lies since he got elected. You would have to work 24 hours a day just to address all his lies. How many people has Trump unfairly accused?

Thanks, Republicans for making the Truth and Evidence a dirty word.

 

[Grokmaster]

Incredible, the kettle calling the pot black.

It is you (Republicans) that made lying into a profession practiced 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Trump is now close to 5000 lies since he got elected. You would have to work 24 hours a day just to address all his lies. How many people has Trump unfairly accused?

Thanks, Republicans for making the Truth and Evidence a dirty word.

Sorry, but TDS Liespeak Fake News bullshiit does not determine what is a "lie", despite the willingness of the leftist Kool-Aid drunk to pretend otherwise.


Thanks DEMOCRATS, for SUBSTITUTING "TRUTH" and "EVIDENCE" with UNCORROBORATED ALLEGATIONS.

 

[jnug]

Its not a trial. The whole thread makes no sense because Kavanaugh is not a trial. Kavanaugh is trying to get onto the SC for life. Sorry...that REQUIRES more skepticism from us and a different standard than what occurs in a Court of Law. So we should just accept these nonsense threads for what they are...NONSENSE.

 

[Grokmaster]

Its not a trial. The whole thread makes no sense because Kavanaugh is not a trial. Kavanaugh is trying to get onto the SC for life. Sorry...that REQUIRES more skepticism from us and a different standard than what occurs in a Court of Law. So we should just accept these nonsense threads for what they are...NONSENSE.

It is the PRESUMED GUILT of an IINNOCENT MAN, BY THE LIE-O-CRATS, based on the HIGHLY SUSPECT ( and moreso everyday) UNSUBTANTIATED CLAIMS of an ACCUSER whose OWN WITNESSES DO NOT BACK UP HER LIES.


There, that help w/your comprehension of the issue?

 

[jnug]

It is the PRESUMED GUILT of an IINNOCENT MAN, BY THE LIE-O-CRATS, based on the HIGHLY SUSPECT ( and moreso everyday) UNSUBTANTIATED CLAIMS of an ACCUSER whose OWN WITNESSES DO NOT BACK UP HER LIES.


There, that help w/your comprehension of the issue?

No...you are just barking up the same tree. Keep misusing terminology from a Court of Law and you are just off in the ozone playing with yourself.

Even those that term Dr. Ford's testimony as a accusations are barking up the wrong tree. Dr Ford has made allegations. Once you start with that, instead of what you have started with, you eliminate the 26 pages of posts that followed your thread starter.

 

[Fledermaus]

lol

Maybe by morning you'll have come to your point and can spit it out.

The historical context of the word is irrelevant to the modern definition. I know, deflection one of the 3 D's of the Trumpeteer, but this is rather ridiculous. If you have a point, just make it already.

Who said the historical context of the word had to be relevant to the modern definition?

 

[Cisero]

It is the PRESUMED GUILT of an IINNOCENT MAN, BY THE LIE-O-CRATS, based on the HIGHLY SUSPECT ( and moreso everyday) UNSUBTANTIATED CLAIMS of an ACCUSER whose OWN WITNESSES DO NOT BACK UP HER LIES.


There, that help w/your comprehension of the issue?

If you WRITE POSTS LIKE THIS every single time you POST ON THE FORUM I can GUARANTEE (really guarantee) it's SUPER COMPLICATED AND PRETTY ANOOYING TO READ !

Also, lie-o-crats... you can come up with better than that.

 

[Ikari]

Who said the historical context of the word had to be relevant to the modern definition?

You seemingly though that it's important as you keep asking if I know the origin of the word. I said it's irrelevant, you started in with this "do you know it".

So it appears that you don't have an actual point here and were just trying to Red Herring away from the correct usage of the word. Very well.

 

[Renae]

If I applied for a job and had a certain reputation that the employers found out about I wouldn't expect to be hired.

Wouldn't you be really upset if the "certain reputation" was lies? No? You'd just say "Aww shucks"?

 

[Fledermaus]

You think child molestation accusations in a divorce are common?! Your "proof" is a lawyer's advertisement??

It was the quickest thing I grabbed. I didn't think your denial ran that deep.

Who are you apologizing for?

Good question. Who do you IMAGINE I am apologizing for since I don't remember apologizing for anyone on this thread.

I wonder if you realize that your claim, your absurd and pathetic evidence and this whole routine is just about the creepiest garbage I've seen all year. Why are you throwing yourself under a bus for child molesters?

Wow. All that WRONG in a single sentence. I made a statement. I provided citation to support. Where have I thrown myself under a bus for child molesters? Post number?

You assuming I supported Clinton, as a diversion, is also very creepy. That's seeking validation. You went into defensive mode and started ignorantly attacking, hoping I was the democrat version of you

I asked if you considered what Clinton did CRYING. I don't think you have answered that question.

apologizing for child molesters on political lines. Why is that your reaction to someone rejecting molester apologism?

Which child molesters have I apologized for? Names? Post numbers?

 

[Fledermaus]

You seemingly though that it's important as you keep asking if I know the origin of the word. I said it's irrelevant, you started in with this "do you know it".

So it appears that you don't have an actual point here and were just trying to Red Herring away from the correct usage of the word. Very well.

Who said the historical context of the word had to be relevant to the modern definition? Not me. So one straw-man argument gone.

And the context is using the word "hysterical" when speaking to women. Perhaps sexist terms are cool for you.

 

[Ikari]

Who said the historical context of the word had to be relevant to the modern definition? Not me. So one straw-man argument gone.

And the context is using the word "hysterical" when speaking to women. Perhaps sexist terms are cool for you.

Demanding that I know the origin of the word is stating that the historical context of the word is still relevant.

There's nothing "sexist" about the modern usage of "hysterics" as it's not confined to one gender. Maybe in the 5th century it was, but that would imply the historical context of the word is relevant in the modern usage. Which you said it wasn't right here, so we're left with the fact that it's not a sexist term, that my usage wasn't even applied at an individual but rather an argument using overly emotionalized and exaggerated rhetoric (which is hysterics per the definition).

So again, it looks like you had no point whatsoever. It took us a long time to finally knock down your Red Herring, but here we sit.

 

[Fledermaus]

Demanding that I know the origin of the word is stating that the historical context of the word is still relevant.

There's nothing "sexist" about the modern usage of "hysterics" as it's not confined to one gender. Maybe in the 5th century it was, but that would imply the historical context of the word is relevant in the modern usage. Which you said it wasn't right here, so we're left with the fact that it's not a sexist term, that my usage wasn't even applied at an individual but rather an argument using overly emotionalized and exaggerated rhetoric (which is hysterics per the definition).

So again, it looks like you had no point whatsoever. It took us a long time to finally knock down your Red Herring, but here we sit.

You are cool with sexist terms...

Got it.

 

[Ikari]

You are cool with sexist terms...

Got it.

lol

As we established, the modern usage of the term isn't sexist.

But I suppose Deception is also one of the 3-D's of the Trumpeteers

lol

 

[Fledermaus]

lol

As we established, the modern usage of the term isn't sexist.

But I suppose Deception is also one of the 3-D's of the Trumpeteers

lol

You are cool with sexist terms...

CLUE: The term only recently has become pejorative.

Got it.

 

[Ikari]

You are cool with sexist terms...

Got it.

lol

So first we have "do you know the origin of the word", to which I said it's irrelevant. Then you finally admitting that the historical context isn't relevant. So now you have to jump ship to another Red Herring and try to call the term sexist.

The modern usage of hysterics isn't sexist, nor is the use of hysterical hyperpartisan propaganda limited to just one sex

lol

Man the intellectual dishonesty runs strong in your "arguments"

lol

 

[Fledermaus]

lol

So first we have "do you know the origin of the word", to which I said it's irrelevant. Then you finally admitting that the historical context isn't relevant. So now you have to jump ship to another Red Herring and try to call the term sexist.

The modern usage of hysterics isn't sexist, nor is the use of hysterical hyperpartisan propaganda limited to just one sex

lol

Man the intellectual dishonesty runs strong in your "arguments"

lol

The term only recently has become pejorative.

Ergo there really shouldn't be "modern usage".

 

[Ikari]

The term only recently has become pejorative.

Ergo there really shouldn't be "modern usage".

So in the modern era the term has become "pejorative", but there's no "modern usage"

lol

OK

You can fall back on 5th century definitions if you like, but the historical context of the word isn't relevant here nor is the use of hysteric a sexist term as it applies to things which are overly emotional and exaggerated...like hysterical hyperpartisan propaganda.

So you have no point at all, you've just been wasting time pretending you had a point, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Are you going to shift the goal posts again and try to claim something different?

lol

Deflection, Deception, Denial...the 3-D's of the Trumpeteer.

lol

 

[Fledermaus]

So in the modern era the term has become "pejorative", but there's no "modern usage"

lol

OK

You can fall back on 5th century definitions if you like, but the historical context of the word isn't relevant here nor is the use of hysteric a sexist term as it applies to things which are overly emotional and exaggerated...like hysterical hyperpartisan propaganda.

So you have no point at all, you've just been wasting time pretending you had a point, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Are you going to shift the goal posts again and try to claim something different?

lol

Deflection, Deception, Denial...the 3-D's of the Trumpeteer.

lol

A lot of typing to say "I don't mind using sexist terms"...

 

[Ikari]

A lot of typing to say "I don't mind using sexist terms"...

Denial, lol

It's not a sexist term.

The problem is that you couldn't address the original argument, so you've had to Red Herring this. I'm not beholden to your militant PC culture and cleansing of the English language. Hysterical arguments are not confined to any one gender, just a matter of fact. No amount of deflection, denial, or deception will cover up the reality of that.

lol

But please, keep going. You've got nothing, had nothing, and present nothing.

lol

 

[PeteEU]

Re: "You're accused-PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT." Thanks Democrats. Thanks a lot.

It is always hilarious when right wingers bring this crap up. Where were they when they accused Clinton and othets... and still do.. of wrong doing with zero proof? And it is hilarious how the right is labelling Ford a lying whore basically but Brett is an angel...

But I agree let's put all evidence out there...which means the GOP have release all the 100 documents they have labelled secret and of course everyone in his life have to be interviewed. Why is it only now we get news that he started a bar brawl?

He is innocent until proven guilty but that also means he and we deserve a free and fair trial no?

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

 

[Fledermaus]

Denial, lol

It's not a sexist term.

The problem is that you couldn't address the original argument, so you've had to Red Herring this. I'm not beholden to your militant PC culture and cleansing of the English language. Hysterical arguments are not confined to any one gender, just a matter of fact. No amount of deflection, denial, or deception will cover up the reality of that.

lol

But please, keep going. You've got nothing, had nothing, and present nothing.

lol

Please... Go on in your defense of sexist terms....

It's fun to watch.

 

[Ikari]

Please... Go on in your defense of sexist terms....

It's fun to watch.

Well since it's not sexist, I'm not defending a sexist term.

lol

 

[Fledermaus]

Well since it's not sexist, I'm not defending a sexist term.

lol

Denial now?