Gorsuch delivered the key fifth vote in the precedent-busting,
but also union-busting, Janus decision. He too had pledged in his hearing to
"follow the law of judicial precedent," assured us he was not a
"philosopher king," and promised to give equal concern to "every
person, poor or rich, mighty or meek."
How did that turn out? Great for the rich and mighty: Gorsuch is
the single most corporate-friendly justice on a Court already full of them,
ruling for big business interests in over 70 percent of cases, and in every
single case where his vote was determinative.
The president early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Court
picks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite "confirmation etiquette"
assurances about precedent, your own words make clear you don't really believe
Roe v. Wade is settled law.
We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends.
The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the
Committee fairy tales about stare decisis, and then riding off with the Roberts
Five, trampling across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those Big
Republican interests keep winning 5-4 partisan decisions.
So you've said, but you've never responded to any of the times that people have listed the important things that just would not be present in society without government. I'm not going to bother to list them again.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I’m somewhat changing my opinion of her as the more stories come out where she claimed to have wanted to remain anonymous but the Dems are now exploiting her and essentially doxxed her. I’ll suspend full judgement. That doesn’t mean I necessarily believe her, I mean she can’t supposedly name any real details other than it was allegedly Kavanaugh.
If the timeline as alleged remains true it would make them both minors at the time, hardly grounds for ruining potentially two careers/lives.
Nice way to destroy your credibility. Again.
According to the profile for the doxxer’s account, which HuffPost is not naming or linking to so as to not draw more attention to Blasey’s personal info, he is a “Conservative, Republican and Trump Supporter” who lives in Philadelphia.
HuffPost contacted a pastor by the same name who also lives in Philadelphia, and whose photos on Facebook and LinkedIn appear to match the Twitter user. The pastor confirmed that he owns the email address that was used to create the Twitter account in 2009, but insisted he’s never used the platform himself. He suggested someone had stolen his identity.
I think at this point all the politicians are concerned with is delaying or proceeding with the confirmation at this point. This ladies life is not of their concern. The only thing they are doing is playing high stakes poker on trying to not look like the assholes. (Note: they all look like assholes).
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
If only president dumbass had any critical thinking skills and could see how much of a hypocritical POS he is for the utterly stupid remarks this morning.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I really don't understand the point of testifying "under oath", to be honest. I mean, if you are just looking to possibly punish the person for perjury after the fact, but in this case? how could it be proved that either one perjured themselves?
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I really don't understand the point of testifying "under oath", to be honest. I mean, if you are just looking to possibly punish the person for perjury after the fact, but in this case? how could it be proved that either one perjured themselves?
I only said that because of the person being accused. The fact it is national news ,and will be for weeks and months, and that it will likely impact a supreme court nominee. I also find it odd that so many details, like where, are lacking. I've heard multiple professionals state that is not normal for a traumatic event. I'm not saying she's making it up, I just don't understand this rush to quick judgement based on the details (or lack of) in this case. And the way anyone who doesnt immediately want him thrown out is being portrayed. Is what we really want is a system that all it takes is 1 person to make a general accusation that can't even come up with the year or location of the event, from 35 years ago, to prevent someone from being in office? I'm not saying she shouldn't be taken seriously, but all this outcry to remove him without any evidence or investigation just seems political to me given the circumstances, and a political motive shrouded in women's rights, which makes it worse.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
you know, I was thinking back to memories I had of parties 30 years ago, and while I recall some of the details of the house, I wouldn't be able to find it on a map. and it was in my general area. so you're right.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
I really don't understand the point of testifying "under oath", to be honest. I mean, if you are just looking to possibly punish the person for perjury after the fact, but in this case? how could it be proved that either one perjured themselves?
I only said that because of the person being accused. The fact it is national news ,and will be for weeks and months, and that it will likely impact a supreme court nominee. I also find it odd that so many details, like where, are lacking. I've heard multiple professionals state that is not normal for a traumatic event. I'm not saying she's making it up, I just don't understand this rush to quick judgement based on the details (or lack of) in this case. And the way anyone who doesnt immediately want him thrown out is being portrayed. Is what we really want is a system that all it takes is 1 person to make a general accusation that can't even come up with the year or location of the event, from 35 years ago, to prevent someone from being in office? I'm not saying she shouldn't be taken seriously, but all this outcry to remove him without any evidence or investigation just seems political to me given the circumstances, and a political motive shrouded in women's rights, which makes it worse.
is it political? absolutely. there is definitely an argument to be made that democrats are rejoicing at the idea that they can block this particular nominee because of this. at the same time it is being made such a big deal because of the timing of it all. the #metoo movement is still in full swing, so it's not just political, it's societal as well. if he's appointed, the #metoo - ers will see this as a major defeat.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I really don't understand the point of testifying "under oath", to be honest. I mean, if you are just looking to possibly punish the person for perjury after the fact, but in this case? how could it be proved that either one perjured themselves?
I only said that because of the person being accused. The fact it is national news ,and will be for weeks and months, and that it will likely impact a supreme court nominee. I also find it odd that so many details, like where, are lacking. I've heard multiple professionals state that is not normal for a traumatic event. I'm not saying she's making it up, I just don't understand this rush to quick judgement based on the details (or lack of) in this case. And the way anyone who doesnt immediately want him thrown out is being portrayed. Is what we really want is a system that all it takes is 1 person to make a general accusation that can't even come up with the year or location of the event, from 35 years ago, to prevent someone from being in office? I'm not saying she shouldn't be taken seriously, but all this outcry to remove him without any evidence or investigation just seems political to me given the circumstances, and a political motive shrouded in women's rights, which makes it worse.
oh, I wasn't really making that comment against you. I've heard this stated numerous times in the media and on social media that they shoudl both testify under oath. if it's not provable either way, what's the point? do people feel guilty if they "swore" to tell the truth?
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
Well, this is why she and her lawyer are asking for a full investigation - so that potential witnesses can be interviewed. And that is why it’s suspicious that the GOP and Kavanaugh don’t want that.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
Well, this is why she and her lawyer are asking for a full investigation - so that potential witnesses can be interviewed. And that is why it’s suspicious that the GOP and Kavanaugh don’t want that.
As part f the public I want one. But if I was him, I wouldn't either. Being innocent is still very expensive and invasive. Who would actually want that, innocent or guilty?
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
If no further evidence comes out, I think Kavanaugh should still be disqualified, because having a SCOTUS judge who this has happened to during the confirmation hearings just isn't workable. He is too tainted either way. They need to find someone else who isn't this massive controversial figure who very well might have tried to rape someone. It's not like if no more evidence comes along it means it didn't happen. Just the POSSIBILITY of it having happened seems enough to find someone else.
Also, it really does seem that she spoke about this incident to people years ago. That alone leaves too much doubt about Kavanaugh IMO, for such a position. And that is fair. People don't have a RIGHT to be a SCOTUS judge. If he doesn't get the position because his confirmations hearings were a shit show, so what?
It isn't impossible to find a nominee who someone doesn't accuse of a sexual crime. Seriously.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
If no further evidence comes out, I think Kavanaugh should still be disqualified, because having a SCOTUS judge who this has happened to during the confirmation hearings just isn't workable. He is too tainted either way. They need to find someone else who isn't this massive controversial figure who very well might have tried to rape someone. It's not like if no more evidence comes along it means it didn't happen. Just the POSSIBILITY of it having happened seems enough to find someone else.
Also, it really does seem that she spoke about this incident to people years ago. That alone leaves too much doubt about Kavanaugh IMO, for such a position. And that is fair. People don't have a RIGHT to be a SCOTUS judge. If he doesn't get the position because his confirmations hearings were a shit show, so what?
It isn't impossible to find a nominee who someone doesn't accuse of a sexual crime. Seriously.
But then the problem is all it takes is someone to say "I dont know when or where, but 30 or 40 years ago he did something bad to me" with zero chance of proving or disproving it, and we've set the pattern that they are now unfit. About speaking about it years ago, I only hear she brought it up 12 years ago, which would still be almost 25 years after the fact. I think the possibility it isnt true isn't worth ruining someone's life and disqualifying them. Assuming she isn't making it up (which I actually don't think she is) I mean, 35 years ago, if she can't even remember when or where, isn't it fairly possible she got the who wrong too? Or that she was too drunk to remember the details correctly? I just don;t agree with the guilty until proven innocent. Especially with so many holes and other possibilities. And that's where this seems to be going in this case and some .
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
If no further evidence comes out, I think Kavanaugh should still be disqualified, because having a SCOTUS judge who this has happened to during the confirmation hearings just isn't workable. He is too tainted either way. They need to find someone else who isn't this massive controversial figure who very well might have tried to rape someone. It's not like if no more evidence comes along it means it didn't happen. Just the POSSIBILITY of it having happened seems enough to find someone else.
Also, it really does seem that she spoke about this incident to people years ago. That alone leaves too much doubt about Kavanaugh IMO, for such a position. And that is fair. People don't have a RIGHT to be a SCOTUS judge. If he doesn't get the position because his confirmations hearings were a shit show, so what?
It isn't impossible to find a nominee who someone doesn't accuse of a sexual crime. Seriously.
But then the problem is all it takes is someone to say "I dont know when or where, but 30 or 40 years ago he did something bad to me" with zero chance of proving or disproving it, and we've set the pattern that they are now unfit. About speaking about it years ago, I only hear she brought it up 12 years ago, which would still be almost 25 years after the fact. I think the possibility it isnt true isn't worth ruining someone's life and disqualifying them. Assuming she isn't making it up (which I actually don't think she is) I mean, 35 years ago, if she can't even remember when or where, isn't it fairly possible she got the who wrong too? Or that she was too drunk to remember the details correctly? I just don;t agree with the guilty until proven innocent. Especially with so many holes and other possibilities. And that's where this seems to be going in this case and some .
I think there is a lot more going on with Kavanaugh than some random chick from his high school making a baseless comment though. There are corroborating circumstances that make her accusation something worth paying attention to.
I think the "fear" of false accusations becoming a common trend is groundless, and for when it does happen the only alternative would be to just ignore accusations (as almost none of them have hard evidence to back them up, while the vast majority of them are indeed true), and that does not seem like a reasonable option at all. Like, no fucking way. I think what people really need to be paying attention to is the fact that Trump seems to have literally surrounded himself with people who are compromised. And I mean REALLY paying attention to it. This should also be a more general concern when it comes to the current GOP.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,805
IF world. where everything is remembered. nothing is lost. captured for all time in the minds eye like a well crafted and shot movie. just waiting to be replayed at a moments notice.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I've avoided asking this, but I feel like I have to. Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse. I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given. It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable. I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
there is nothing inherently wrong with asking questions. hell, that's exactly what the victim would be up against if she agrees to testify. it depends, to me, wholly, on how that question or statement is framed.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
I don't really find it weird she doesn't remember the location. If you went to a lot of parties, where they were really blends together. I know for a fact I have plenty of memories from parties where I don't recall specifically which party it was.
Yes, everyone does. But if there was a big event at one of them, that would stand out. If you were at a party where someone got stabbed, you'd remember that the rest of your life. Its not like 10 years later youd say "I remember watching someone getting stabbed, but I just can't remember where that happened. That's what I find odd. I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
Yeah maybe, although I guess that too depends one a couple of things. 1) how drunk was she? and 2) maybe she actually didn't know where in the hell she was in the first place. I know I went to a good number of parties in my time where I had no idea where I actually was because I just got in the backseat of someone's car and paid no attention at all to where we were even going specifically. I'd just arrive at a random house, lol.
In any case, there are a LOT of victims who don't remember a LOT from their traumatic experiences, so I don't think that theory holds very well. There are rape victims who couldn't even remember what their attackers looked like later, even though they got a good look at them. In some cases trauma burns memories into people's heads, but another very common impact of trauma is to block out some details. One shouldn't assume that a victim will remember every detail - not even some of the major details. It doesn't necessarily work that way. And any psychiatrist or psychologist or sex crimes investigator would testify to that.
And that may be the case. But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on. And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet. I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
If no further evidence comes out, I think Kavanaugh should still be disqualified, because having a SCOTUS judge who this has happened to during the confirmation hearings just isn't workable. He is too tainted either way. They need to find someone else who isn't this massive controversial figure who very well might have tried to rape someone. It's not like if no more evidence comes along it means it didn't happen. Just the POSSIBILITY of it having happened seems enough to find someone else.
Also, it really does seem that she spoke about this incident to people years ago. That alone leaves too much doubt about Kavanaugh IMO, for such a position. And that is fair. People don't have a RIGHT to be a SCOTUS judge. If he doesn't get the position because his confirmations hearings were a shit show, so what?
It isn't impossible to find a nominee who someone doesn't accuse of a sexual crime. Seriously.
But then the problem is all it takes is someone to say "I dont know when or where, but 30 or 40 years ago he did something bad to me" with zero chance of proving or disproving it, and we've set the pattern that they are now unfit. About speaking about it years ago, I only hear she brought it up 12 years ago, which would still be almost 25 years after the fact. I think the possibility it isnt true isn't worth ruining someone's life and disqualifying them. Assuming she isn't making it up (which I actually don't think she is) I mean, 35 years ago, if she can't even remember when or where, isn't it fairly possible she got the who wrong too? Or that she was too drunk to remember the details correctly? I just don;t agree with the guilty until proven innocent. Especially with so many holes and other possibilities. And that's where this seems to be going in this case and some .
I think there is a lot more going on with Kavanaugh than some random chick from his high school making a baseless comment though. There are corroborating circumstances that make her accusation something worth paying attention to.
I think the "fear" of false accusations becoming a common trend is groundless, and for when it does happen the only alternative would be to just ignore accusations (as almost none of them have hard evidence to back them up, while the vast majority of them are indeed true), and that does not seem like a reasonable option at all. Like, no fucking way. I think what people really need to be paying attention to is the fact that Trump seems to have literally surrounded himself with people who are compromised. And I mean REALLY paying attention to it. This should also be a more general concern when it comes to the current GOP.
You think the fear of false accusations is groundless and yet you want a guy disqualified from being his dream job because of a claim that may or may not have occurred? Strange.
i want an investigation, but I’m not willing to say if no further evidence etc is presented that he should still not be voted on.
Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed because he’s a partisan hack who lied under oath in his confirmation hearings and has compromised moral judgement. I’d like a thorough investigation as well but his “prepping” for days with White House attorneys and not calling for an FBI investigation while proclaiming “innocence,” is enough for me to believe he’s not worthy of sitting in judgement of others in a life time appointment on the highest court in the land. Go to your B candidate Team Trump Treason.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Gorsuch delivered the key fifth vote in the precedent-busting, but also union-busting, Janus decision. He too had pledged in his hearing to "follow the law of judicial precedent," assured us he was not a "philosopher king," and promised to give equal concern to "every person, poor or rich, mighty or meek."
How did that turn out? Great for the rich and mighty: Gorsuch is the single most corporate-friendly justice on a Court already full of them, ruling for big business interests in over 70 percent of cases, and in every single case where his vote was determinative.
The president early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Court picks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite "confirmation etiquette" assurances about precedent, your own words make clear you don't really believe Roe v. Wade is settled law.
We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends.
The sad fact is that there is no consequence for telling the Committee fairy tales about stare decisis, and then riding off with the Roberts Five, trampling across whatever precedent gets in the way of letting those Big Republican interests keep winning 5-4 partisan decisions.
Every. Damned. Time.
Source: https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-reveals-kavanaughs-pro-corporate-right-wing-record-in-scotus-hearing-opener
The fix is already in but go ahead, keep believing its the dems that are sticking it to you.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So you've said, but you've never responded to any of the times that people have listed the important things that just would not be present in society without government. I'm not going to bother to list them again.
According to the profile for the doxxer’s account, which HuffPost is not naming or linking to so as to not draw more attention to Blasey’s personal info, he is a “Conservative, Republican and Trump Supporter” who lives in Philadelphia.
HuffPost contacted a pastor by the same name who also lives in Philadelphia, and whose photos on Facebook and LinkedIn appear to match the Twitter user. The pastor confirmed that he owns the email address that was used to create the Twitter account in 2009, but insisted he’s never used the platform himself. He suggested someone had stolen his identity.
A Troll Doxxed Christine Blasey Ford. Twitter Let Him Back On Its Platform In Hours. - HuffPost https://apple.news/A5PmHsle3QnqUHUAoAiO72Q
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-vows-to-move-ahead-with-kavanaugh-vote-if-his-accuser-doesnt-testify-monday/2018/09/20/a7132ee8-bcf5-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Why is it that so many who just question this story are treated like they support abuse? I've seen comments and memes on here and all over facebook that essentially imply if you question this story, if you dont want Kavanaigh immediately thrown out with proper due process, then you support abuse.
I'm not saying Dr Ford is making this up, but when you consider the facts that she doesn't know when or where this happened, doesn't know how. Essentially the only thing that she can say about that night is this accusation. How are we not supposed to question this? How is that mistreating her to want answers? They are serious accusations, and essentially ones he can't even try to defend with the little bit of information that is given.
It is impossible to even try to defend accusations that are this broad. So to ask questions, to want a testimony given and to want answers is completely acceptable.
I'm not defending him. I think there should be an investigation. I think that investigation should also require testimony under oath when you consider the level of accusations and the consequences it has.
I also find it odd that she remembers the assault but can't recall where. I can see not remembering the date, but the location? I find that a bit strange. but who knows, maybe that is something very common with something traumatic, I don't know.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I also find it odd that so many details, like where, are lacking. I've heard multiple professionals state that is not normal for a traumatic event. I'm not saying she's making it up, I just don't understand this rush to quick judgement based on the details (or lack of) in this case. And the way anyone who doesnt immediately want him thrown out is being portrayed.
Is what we really want is a system that all it takes is 1 person to make a general accusation that can't even come up with the year or location of the event, from 35 years ago, to prevent someone from being in office? I'm not saying she shouldn't be taken seriously, but all this outcry to remove him without any evidence or investigation just seems political to me given the circumstances, and a political motive shrouded in women's rights, which makes it worse.
www.headstonesband.com
I'd imagine getting raped is 100 times more traumatic that watching someone get stabbed, and therefore 100 times less likely to forget.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
But I imagine they could get a lot of details if this was to be investigated. Find friends who partied with her who could remember other details and so on.
And honestly, if no further information comes out, I would say this has to be dropped. If they can support the accusations I hope he;s prosecuted. There just isn't anything within the accusations yet.
I hope there are answers. I was just commenting on the completely one-sided public opinion that is totally okay with the lack of details. I saw people outraged that he didn't take a lie detector test when suposedly she did but won't release the results. No one cared about that though, just wanted to shame him. The whole thing, from the story to the public reaction, seems very odd to me.
About speaking about it years ago, I only hear she brought it up 12 years ago, which would still be almost 25 years after the fact.
I think the possibility it isnt true isn't worth ruining someone's life and disqualifying them.
Assuming she isn't making it up (which I actually don't think she is) I mean, 35 years ago, if she can't even remember when or where, isn't it fairly possible she got the who wrong too? Or that she was too drunk to remember the details correctly?
I just don;t agree with the guilty until proven innocent. Especially with so many holes and other possibilities. And that's where this seems to be going in this case and some .
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
He's a punk. Be a fucking President, loser
i want an investigation, but I’m not willing to say if no further evidence etc is presented that he should still not be voted on.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©