CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:06 pm
 


xerxes xerxes:
$1:
The last line is likely the most accurate one I've seen since the left went insane trying to destroy the Bush administration.


Here's the problem though. The write (and you) are under the impression that the Ford/Kavanaugh thing was a ploy, a tactic the Democrats tried to stop the confirmation. Except it wasn't, unless you believe that Ford was a liar and a plant, which she isn't. nor is Debbie Ramirez or Julie Swetnick or the other dozen people who knew Kavanugh when he was young who affirmed that he was a belligerent boor of a drunk totally capable of the actions he was accused of.


So you have proof? Feel free to show us. Otherwise it's all just unfounded accusations and is just more proof that the premise of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in your or their world.

If the FBI had found any credible evidence against Brett Kavanaugh that supported Dr. Fords accusations do you honestly think they'd cover it up? Especially since the have this love affair with the current President. Also, allow me to point out that being a "belligerant boor of a drunk doesn't" make you a rapist unless of course you're being nominated by Donald Trump for the Supreme Court because that fact alone puts you in the crosshairs of Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic Party. Who publicly stated before Trump even made a nomination that they were going to stop it and here's why.

$1:
Liberals fear their favored positions on everything from abortion rights to marriage equality to affirmative action could be threatened. Some also believe Trump could select a justice who would cast deciding votes on constitutional questions stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, like whether a sitting president can be indicted or pardon himself.


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... -supreme-/

So let me put it this way. They gambled and lost. Now they have to live with the fact they no longer rule the Supreme Court and that bothers them beyond belief.

But, any party that has high ranking people who would condone or ignore the doxing of women and children with not one word of outrage has the moral compass of a $2.00 hooker during Fleet Week and I personally wouldn't believe one thing that came out of their twisted mouths.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:30 pm
 


Kavanaugh sworn in as 114th Supreme Court justice, hours after Senate votes to confirm

$1:
Kavanaugh was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts in a private ceremony, accompanied by his wife and children. The ceremonial swearing in is expected to happen on Monday evening at the White House. It means that now-Justice Kavanaugh will begin hearing cases before the court on Tuesday.


Attachments:
Kavanaught sworn in.jpg
Kavanaught sworn in.jpg [ 80.11 KiB | Viewed 23 times ]
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9445
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:17 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
BRAH BRAH:
The Left's last Hail Mary failed, it's over.


I wouldn't say that - their Hail Mary is the mid-term election. If they get control of the House or Senate, then all bets are off.

Kavanaugh's conformation will drive the Republican base in November while the Left has a history of putting on a good show but when it it comes down to making it count they always come up short.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19841
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:47 pm
 


$1:
So you have proof? Feel free to show us. Otherwise it's all just unfounded accusations and is just more proof that the premise of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in your or their world.

If the FBI had found any credible evidence against Brett Kavanaugh that supported Dr. Fords accusations do you honestly think they'd cover it up? Especially since the have this love affair with the current President. Also, allow me to point out that being a "belligerant boor of a drunk doesn't" make you a rapist unless of course you're being nominated by Donald Trump for the Supreme Court because that fact alone puts you in the crosshairs of Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic Party. Who publicly stated before Trump even made a nomination that they were going to stop it and here's why.


How about preponderance of evidence? Again. A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.

And the FBI? They were never allowed to properly investigate the allegations. Imagine if you got mugged and the police never interviewed you or any witnesses to the act. But instead, talked to the mugger and his buddies. Because that's how the Ford investigation went. It was a sham all along.

$1:
Liberals fear their favored positions on everything from abortion rights to marriage equality to affirmative action could be threatened. Some also believe Trump could select a justice who would cast deciding votes on constitutional questions stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, like whether a sitting president can be indicted or pardon himself.


You're damn right they're afraid. We're talking about years of social progress being undone by a small minority of the country. The right knows they're stuck in the past and they ultimately lose every social battle. From Woman's Suffrage to Civil Rights to Same Sex Marriage, they lose. So the court is the last branch of government to ruin. Congress has been gerrymandered into irrelevance and bought off by special interests. The president is someone who lost the popular vote, and now the supreme court, what is supposed to be the last defense of democracy is now a partisan arm of the GOP.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:05 am
 


xerxes xerxes:
How about preponderance of evidence? Again. A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.


In other words, nothing.


$1:
And the FBI? They were never allowed to properly investigate the allegations. Imagine if you got mugged and the police never interviewed you or any witnesses to the act. But instead, talked to the mugger and his buddies. Because that's how the Ford investigation went. It was a sham all along.


OK. Keystone cops it is.





$1:
You're damn right they're afraid. We're talking about years of social progress being undone by a small minority of the country. The right knows they're stuck in the past and they ultimately lose every social battle. From Woman's Suffrage to Civil Rights to Same Sex Marriage, they lose. So the court is the last branch of government to ruin. Congress has been gerrymandered into irrelevance and bought off by special interests. The president is someone who lost the popular vote, and now the supreme court, what is supposed to be the last defense of democracy is now a partisan arm of the GOP.



Oh, the salt, it burns. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:54 am
 




Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:09 am
 


xerxes xerxes:
$1:
So you have proof? Feel free to show us. Otherwise it's all just unfounded accusations and is just more proof that the premise of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in your or their world.

If the FBI had found any credible evidence against Brett Kavanaugh that supported Dr. Fords accusations do you honestly think they'd cover it up? Especially since the have this love affair with the current President. Also, allow me to point out that being a "belligerant boor of a drunk doesn't" make you a rapist unless of course you're being nominated by Donald Trump for the Supreme Court because that fact alone puts you in the crosshairs of Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic Party. Who publicly stated before Trump even made a nomination that they were going to stop it and here's why.


How about preponderance of evidence? Again. A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.

And the FBI? They were never allowed to properly investigate the allegations. Imagine if you got mugged and the police never interviewed you or any witnesses to the act. But instead, talked to the mugger and his buddies. Because that's how the Ford investigation went. It was a sham all along.

$1:
Liberals fear their favored positions on everything from abortion rights to marriage equality to affirmative action could be threatened. Some also believe Trump could select a justice who would cast deciding votes on constitutional questions stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, like whether a sitting president can be indicted or pardon himself.


You're damn right they're afraid. We're talking about years of social progress being undone by a small minority of the country. The right knows they're stuck in the past and they ultimately lose every social battle. From Woman's Suffrage to Civil Rights to Same Sex Marriage, they lose. So the court is the last branch of government to ruin. Congress has been gerrymandered into irrelevance and bought off by special interests. The president is someone who lost the popular vote, and now the supreme court, what is supposed to be the last defense of democracy is now a partisan arm of the GOP.




You keep returning to the "Kavanaugh is a drunk" therefore he must be a rapist defense. So show me the preponderance of evidence because if I remember correctly the law says, innocent till proven guilty and that the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt? So if his friends were raping people they should be in jail not Kavanaugh. But, because they have nothing on him except he drank to much they're trying the guilt by association tactic. I'm sorry but the drinking accusations and other lame attempts at painting him in a bad light are a red herring plain and simple and were just another last ditch attempt by Democrats to stop the appointment.

As for the years of "social justice" being undone by a "small minority". Allow me to point out that the election count was 65,844,610 to 62,979,636 a difference of 2,864,974 out of a country of 325.7 million. So if you consider 62,979,636 a small minority then you've become as delusional as most of the Democrats. As for the potential loss of those social programs the Democrats champion, maybe the 62,979,636 are sick of those failed left wing programs that did nothing for mainstream America but, did further a minority agenda that they didn't believe in.

And for the record I don't think Kavanaugh will turn out to be the insane right wing maniac ruling over the the Supreme Court while planning the destruction of destroy Roe vs Wade like some people are making out.

You keep calling the investigation a sham so it still begs the question. If you have information that would prove Kavanaugh guilty of some crime you should bring it forward because, even if he's been appointed to the Supreme Court he can still be impeached and in legal terms issuing an accusation doesn't mean it's true.


But, until that happens the Democratic Party will have to spend the next 2+ years digging up dirt on him in the vain hope he'll have done something so heinous that he can be impeached. Otherwise, they'll have to learn to live with the fact they lost control of the Supreme Court which, was a body no political party or ideology should have had control over in the first place. Not even your friends in the Democratic Party.

But, if by some miracle they succeed in attempting to impeach Kavanaugh and actually control the House and Senate they can then replace him with some stalwart of the left who'll blindly follow the progressive platform because, as evidenced from the past four decades. The Democrats don't really want a fair and balanced approach from the Supreme Court. They want total control plain and simple so they can cram their progressive agenda down everyone's throat despite the fact a very large portion of Americans don't seem to want it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:50 am
 


xerxes xerxes:
$1:
So you have proof? Feel free to show us. Otherwise it's all just unfounded accusations and is just more proof that the premise of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply in your or their world.

If the FBI had found any credible evidence against Brett Kavanaugh that supported Dr. Fords accusations do you honestly think they'd cover it up? Especially since the have this love affair with the current President. Also, allow me to point out that being a "belligerant boor of a drunk doesn't" make you a rapist unless of course you're being nominated by Donald Trump for the Supreme Court because that fact alone puts you in the crosshairs of Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic Party. Who publicly stated before Trump even made a nomination that they were going to stop it and here's why.


How about preponderance of evidence? Again. A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.

And the FBI? They were never allowed to properly investigate the allegations. Imagine if you got mugged and the police never interviewed you or any witnesses to the act. But instead, talked to the mugger and his buddies. Because that's how the Ford investigation went. It was a sham all along.

Sorry sweetheart, the FBI also investigated some of the witness claims as well. Not the FBI's fault none of Ford's witnesses can corroborate her story. But let's use your analogy. Imagine if you got mugged, didn't tell the police and waited 36 years to tell a Senator in a letter. Do you think you'd have much credibility at that point? We already know there's a connection between the Ford and the Kavanaugh family as Brett's mother ruled against Ford's parents in a foreclosure case about 35 years ago.

But here's the real telling part that you're full of shit. Feinstein, the woman determined to make the accusations public now wants to seal the FBI investigation that exonerated Kavanaugh and keep the results of the investigation from the public.

Then there's Swetnick. Literally hours after Cory Booker hilariously announced that he had deciphered some code in Kavanaugh's yearbook about gang rape, this twat comes crawling out of the woodwork saying she was at those gang rape parties. Really? And she not once went to the police about it? So was she just a slut or did she simply enjoy watching other women get raped?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:28 am
 


Canadian Professor, Janice Fiamengo has an interesting take on Hillary's question concerning this subject - "why would anybody put themselves through this if they did not believe that they had important information to convey to the Senate?":



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:10 pm
 


xerxes xerxes:
A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.


I can only think of one person who meets all the criteria of that claim. If you mean Julie Swetnick have the guts to say so. Then we can have some fun examining your claim.

If you mean another or others, link or links please.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:13 pm
 


Oh...and here's a hint at what I mean by fun:

Image

There's more.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19841
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:33 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
xerxes xerxes:
A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.


I can only think of one person who meets all the criteria of that claim. If you mean Julie Swetnick have the guts to say so. Then we can have some fun examining your claim.

If you mean another or others, link or links please.


https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/598kdx/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-devils-triangle-threesome-interview-vgtrn

Corroboration for Ramirez' account:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11671
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 12:41 pm
 


$1:
Oh, the salt, it burns. :lol:

Exact admission of the whole problem in a couple of words. Who cares if it stinks. Who cares if I'm wrong. I might be that plus one that they have to bow to. Ha Ha!

And the usual gang of arseholes still dances around the wrong point for another ten pages...
When you call yourself a democracy you try to do things that satisfy MOST people. Not insist on repeatedly doing things that satisfy the smallest amount you can legally describe as a majority. That's what a WIN is, not this farce.

Kavanaugh’s appointment isn’t a step backward. It’s a head-first plunge into an ugly past

The Kavanaugh verdict: A harbinger of havoc


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:06 pm
 


"Christians" already gloating - get the coathangers ready, bitches.

MAGA!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:22 pm
 


xerxes xerxes:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
xerxes xerxes:
A bunch of people affirmed that Kavanaugh was a drunk who hung out with people who got girls drunk to force themselves on them. In sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.


I can only think of one person who meets all the criteria of that claim. If you mean Julie Swetnick have the guts to say so. Then we can have some fun examining your claim.

If you mean another or others, link or links please.


https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/598kdx/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-devils-triangle-threesome-interview-vgtrn

Corroboration for Ramirez' account:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates


Let's deal with the New Yorker first:

* The accuser, Deborah Ramirez, admits in The New Yorker’s piece that there were “significant gaps” in her memories about the event.

* By The New Yorker’s own admission, Ramirez was reluctant to speak with certainty on the allegation.

* It took six days of “assessing her memories” for Ramirez to say she recalled Kavanaugh committing the alleged incident, and that came only after consulting with an attorney provided by the Democrats.

* The New Yorker admits it has not confirmed through eyewitnesses Kavanaugh was even present at the party and other students who knew Kavanaugh said they never heard of the incident.

However...

“In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events…”

“We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place.”

“Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not.”


* Further, those classmates said that the allegations in the story would be completely out of character for Kavanaugh.

* A former student who was best friends with Ramirez said she never told her about the incident despite how close they were.

“The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, ‘This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.’”


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st ... kavanaugh/

Also...

$1:
In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... ule=inline

And I'll wait to see if somebody wants to click these bogus claims over to the next page here before I show you how baseless the claims made in the far left digital rag Vice are.


Last edited by N_Fiddledog on Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 414 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.