The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

What is the "both ways" part?

 

She had testified earlier that her and her best friend (who she claimed as a witness) were driven to the party together.

This was given in her prepared speech prior to questioning

 

I still don't see the "both ways" part.

 

She testified in her opening statement that she and her best friend were driven to the party together. She stated in her questioning she was driven home. Both ways meaning to the party and from the party.

 

Got it! (finally!)

 

Sorry dude, My mistake. I was in brain lock

 

Is that it? You resuscitate an old thread to repeat a Trump speech?

Before responding, let's get one thing clear: Trump lies. You know that, right? So repeating anything Trump says is more likely than not, repeating a lie.

Now... her not remembering details about a party 35 years ago is expected. It would be very suspicious if she had remembered so many details.

In any case you didn't address any of the lies that Kavannaugh told. Which was the main point of the OP. So I don't see the purpose in reopening this.

 

Again, no, Those are my thoughts and whats in the transcription.

What does that have to do with my response?

Nothing to discuss. She lost, its in the transcript. The majority didn't buy her BS stories, Kavanaugh was confirmed.

This is your opinion not fact. Liberals always pin their dreams on wild claims like Kavanaugh didn't say he drank as much as I think he did so he's a liar and will be impeached> If you think thats a valid argument then keep livin the dream but in the real world, The majority of the Senate and the House disagrees with you, they didn't buy the Ford story book fable, they didn't buy the (Kavanaugh was a serial rapist) claim and they confirmed his appointment. He is a now and will continue to be a SCOTUS Justice and no amount of pouting is going to change the facts.

Sorry and thanks for playing.

 

And neither did the Democrats on the hearing Committee. They didn't seem to think much of it.

 

What nonsense from the RabidRight that cannot conceive that such "extraconstitutionality" is in the minds of pathetic conservatives adverse to any change whatsoever.

That is, they cannot conceive that a Constitution written more than two-centuries ago with a mentality of that time must evolve for a country to advance with it.

No wonder therefore that:
*It has taken so long for women to have obtained the same rights (political and economic) that men have had. But they remain so few represented in Congress. (And "heaven forbid", NEVER A FEMALE POTUS!)
*Our sacred right to a direct Popular-Vote have been manipulated by gerrymandering, the Electoral College and Massive Funding of political candidates (in a nation that "markets politicians like it does dishwasher tablets"!)
*That our coloured people (of all hews) are still at the bottom of the economic totem-pole now 60-years after Our March on Washington has definitively changed nothing*!

That's America boyz-'n-girlz! Yes, that is America's sorry-state today ...

*Don't believe that? See info-graphic on the evolution of incomes here:

 

I would not have even my very best intentions for others imposed upon them by force, not even by force of law. THAT is the biggest difference between you and me. That is the biggest difference between me and those I agree with.

Individuals cannot long retain for themselves more individual liberty, or private property, than they have tolerance for what others do, or don't do, with their liberty or private property. Individual's cannot long retain ownership of themselves if they have insufficient tolerance for what others do, or don't do, with their ownership of themselves.

I value my ownership of myself above all other material. Infringements upon liberty, or private property, other than the liberty and/or the private property of others is an unjust infringement upon self-possession(one's ownership of them self).

I condone very little; I condemn even less. I judge all things and tolerate most of it. On average, I'd say that I condone about 2% of stuff. I condemn 1% of stuff, and I merely tolerate 97% of stuff.

Do not be indiscriminant. "I don't judge.", is not a noble claim. Good judgement is a learned and perishable skill. Those who do not exercise good judgement on a regular basis are those most likely to condemn everything that they don't condone.

Every intolerant person is intolerant for the same exact reason. Every intolerant person is intolerant because they are left to sincerely believe that tolerance does not actually exist. They are not tolerant, and they do not believe that you are tolerant. The intolerant will always be left to sincerely believe that you tacitly disagree with them, but that you just won't admit it. They will never be left to believe that you secretly agree with them. The intolerant will always attribute to those who claim to be tolerant a secret desire to force others to do, or not do, what they want them to do or not do. My highest asperation for my equals is that they own themselves; however, I would not use force, not even the force of law, to keep someone from selling themselves to others either in part or in total, either temporarily or permanently.

 

Hah! You actually believed that they voted for Kavannaugh because the believed him? I can't even believe that you would be that naive. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just being disingenuous. In either case, this brings into question your seriousness as a debater.

 

You sound butt hurt because no one fell for the bogus bimbos.

 

They didn't????

 

No. Are you able to prove that they did?

 

He demonstrates his point. He is left to believe those you describe as "bimbos". He is the evidence you ask for. His sincere belief in what he writes does not prove what he says to be true, but that's not what you asked for. You asked for something he was already providing everyone reading this thread. I like where I think that you're coming from, and where I am left to believe you're going. Please, try to come closer to saying what you mean and meaning what you say.

 

I'm sorry, who is "HE?"

 

I thought that you asked Golem if he could prove that anyone believed those you referred to as "bimbos". I submit that he is the evidence that you are asking for. We should inquire of him, because I've been looking, for over two years, for even one person who would freely admit that they were tricked out of voting for Hillary Clinton by the Russians. Golem may tick two boxes here. He may be that guy.

 

You've got the wrong guy. I never referred to them as "bimbos."

 

My bad. That's the risk one takes jumping into a thread.

A quick look above confirms my error. You used the neutral "they". It was not you who used the word, "bimbo". Please, forgive me; and while we're at it, what is your response to my query?

 

"They" is the democrats who were on the confirmation hearing committee. I was saying that they didn't raise any lies told by Kavanaugh.

You are forgiven.

What query is that?

 

You are right (and Right) in only one respect: No change can happen until sanctioned (via the ballot-box) by we, the sheeple.

But, that may indeed be happening as I write. Time will tell ...

PS: Tolerance or intolerance are the prime-matter of laws.

 

Do you believe any Democrats voted against him because they believed he was not trustworthy?

Kavanaugh, based on the evidence presented, was an honorable man and a good pick for SCOTUS.

 

Well he's a serial ******bag, and so is Trump, so I guess it all fits.

 

I wouldn't.

The Replicant Right on this forum are a bunch of one-liners who see the economy through a highly specific prism of their own. That is, The Replicant Party Can Do No Harm.

Nor any good except for the rich and ultra-rich, which Donald Dork has once again proven by lowering tax-rates for his buddies. As if they weren't ripping-off enough Income already.

Did the American voter in November of 2015 vote to lower income-taxes on the rich. Nope, we didn't. We voted for more spending upon Education - an idea that Hillary borrowed from Bernie Sanders. We voted to overturn Citizens United that allows parties to spend limitless amounts of money to win elections. She also fought for equality of pay between the sexes. (See more in the link just below.)

Lest we forget, here are Hillary's Ten Key Campaign Promises. Though having won the election by a significant popular-vote majority of 2%, she lost the presidency!

AND WE ARE LEFT WITH A DONALD-DORK WHOSE UNFITNESS FOR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME GLARINGLY OBVIOUS ...