| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Wow
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. -- Posted with my iPad Pro It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry. -- x |
|
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"? Wow. There are really two issues with the testimonies of yesterday. 1. Was Ford's testimony and claims credible? IMO ... yes. Was it backed up with solid evidence? No. 2. Was Kavanaugh's testimony credible? IMO ... yes. Was it backed up with solid evidence .. Yes. Winner: Kavanaugh. Sorry. Oh ... Senator Flake just announced he agrees and will vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation. Now the Senate committee will vote. But not until that blowhard Blumenthal finishes a last ditch attempt to delay again. |
|
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
|
|
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
On 9/28/2018 9:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman. My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. -- Posted with my iPad Pro It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry. The FBI doesn't assess character in the course of these background checks, ****-for-brains. The FBI doesn't make a character judgement but collects information related to character that may be considered by the organization requesting the background check. Kavanaugh has had six such background checks. When I was in the Navy my job required a TS Cryto security clearance. An FBI background check was conducted. I learned later from friends, neighbors and former school teachers that several had been interviewed by a FBI agent who collected their impressions of my character and if there were any issues they were aware of that would make me untrustworthy of holding the required clearance. That's how it works. |
|
#16
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:46:36 AM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat, attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass murderer. Yawn. "The American Bar Association on Friday awarded Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating, giving the judge a unanimous “well-qualified” score. “The rating of ‘Well Qualified’ is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement,” the ABA states in its description of the ranking process." You're welcome for the education on his judicial temperament. All the rest of your descriptors are BS. |
|
#17
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.* If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.* She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue.* Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.* Somethings just don't add up.* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would* be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman.* My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein.** I can't remember if that question was asked of her.* I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.* Call it a tie.** The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories.* In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with:* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"?** Wow. I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk, and an attacker of women. |
|
#18
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
On 9/28/2018 11:27 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess. The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining control in Congress. It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.* If the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it. I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.* She comes across as a troubled woman possibly with issues that are not related to the Kavanaugh issue.* Just a guess but she seems very insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry, a university professor who should be very comfortable in public appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.* Somethings just don't add up.* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS, at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape occurred, would* be an experience that would cause a life-long trauma in a woman.* My wife said no way. That's all I can go by as a male. I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she communicate privately with friends or associates who encouraged her to contact Feinstein.** I can't remember if that question was asked of her.* I know it's cynical but Ford is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump. I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.* Call it a tie. The tie breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible evidence that backed up their stories.* In that case Kavanaugh won hands down. He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for future debates. Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him. My post started with:* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess." Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it. My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat. Now he's a "mass murderer"?** Wow. I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk, and an attacker of women. Deferring to your superior writing skills, I won't debate how one can parse your sentence, "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat." On second thought, I think I will: To me, you are including Kavanaugh as a mass murderer. If you don't think Kavanaugh is a mass murderer, to be clear it should have been two different sentences representing two different thoughts of opinion. Example: "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh." "Republicans would approve a mass murderer for that seat". |
|
#19
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
|
|
#20
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
