Kavanaugh Accuser Christina Ford Linked To Big Pharma Abortion Pill Maker

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What's really funny is that the member thinks you're a Russian ignorant racist Trump supporter because you won't swallow the leftist narrative.

They apparntly dont remember or know how hard i pushed for Rand Paul lol........or how critical ive been on Trump, hell my avatar was made for it lol

THIS Rand Paul?

did you just link an article whose first line was calling the person "Kooky" yep thats unbiased .........

Seriously are you just trolling , because i really really really, cant believe someone is this ignorant.

Back at ya!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DJW001


The New York Times published links to a bunch of his legal opinion papers and I noticed how often he cited his boss and mentor, Merrick Garland's, writings and opinions as a basis for many of his. I think he knows it should have been Merrick Garland, and that he's supposed to be ram rodded through because of his recent written opinion that a president shouldn't be investigated.

Wait..........so you guys are riding the fence on this saying its justified because Garland, who Obama wanted, but then saying that he shouldnt be placed as a judge because he agreed with Garland on some policies......

.........do you people not see the lunacy here?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What's really funny is that the member thinks you're a Russian ignorant racist Trump supporter because you won't swallow the leftist narrative.

They apparntly dont remember or know how hard i pushed for Rand Paul lol........or how critical ive been on Trump, hell my avatar was made for it lol

THIS Rand Paul?

did you just link an article whose first line was calling the person "Kooky" yep thats unbiased .........

Seriously are you just trolling , because i really really really, cant believe someone is this ignorant.

Back at ya!

yea except my link wasnt a bias source, calling people names.........soooooooo .......nice try........

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What's really funny is that the member thinks you're a Russian ignorant racist Trump supporter because you won't swallow the leftist narrative.

They apparntly dont remember or know how hard i pushed for Rand Paul lol........or how critical ive been on Trump, hell my avatar was made for it lol

THIS Rand Paul?

did you just link an article whose first line was calling the person "Kooky" yep thats unbiased .........

Seriously are you just trolling , because i really really really, cant believe someone is this ignorant.

Back at ya!

yea except my link wasnt a bias source, calling people names.........soooooooo .......nice try........

You linked to a blog. I had to go to the blog's links to confirm.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What's really funny is that the member thinks you're a Russian ignorant racist Trump supporter because you won't swallow the leftist narrative.

They apparntly dont remember or know how hard i pushed for Rand Paul lol........or how critical ive been on Trump, hell my avatar was made for it lol

THIS Rand Paul?

did you just link an article whose first line was calling the person "Kooky" yep thats unbiased .........

Seriously are you just trolling , because i really really really, cant believe someone is this ignorant.

Back at ya!

yea except my link wasnt a bias source, calling people names.........soooooooo .......nice try........

You linked to a blog. I had to go to the blog's links to confirm.

Did they NOT confirm what i said...........do tell..........i swear this is why we are hoplessly divided as a country, because neither of you on the left and right anymore, have any intellectual honesty

And in turn there can be NO dialogue........

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DJW001


The New York Times published links to a bunch of his legal opinion papers and I noticed how often he cited his boss and mentor, Merrick Garland's, writings and opinions as a basis for many of his. I think he knows it should have been Merrick Garland, and that he's supposed to be ram rodded through because of his recent written opinion that a president shouldn't be investigated.

Wait..........so you guys are riding the fence on this saying its justified because Garland, who Obama wanted, but then saying that he shouldnt be placed as a judge because he agreed with Garland on some policies......

.........do you people not see the lunacy here?

Where have I ever said it was "justified?" It was, however, inevitable, and Kavanaugh should have understood that. Any nomination this close to an election would have been borked.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


What's really funny is that the member thinks you're a Russian ignorant racist Trump supporter because you won't swallow the leftist narrative.

They apparntly dont remember or know how hard i pushed for Rand Paul lol........or how critical ive been on Trump, hell my avatar was made for it lol

THIS Rand Paul?

did you just link an article whose first line was calling the person "Kooky" yep thats unbiased .........

Seriously are you just trolling , because i really really really, cant believe someone is this ignorant.

Back at ya!

yea except my link wasnt a bias source, calling people names.........soooooooo .......nice try........

You linked to a blog. I had to go to the blog's links to confirm.

Did they NOT confirm what i said...........do tell..........i swear this is why we are hoplessly divided as a country, because neither of you on the left and right anymore, have any intellectual honesty

It confirmed that Ford claims to have a fear of flying. It did not say anyone had made a sworn affidavit.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DJW001


The New York Times published links to a bunch of his legal opinion papers and I noticed how often he cited his boss and mentor, Merrick Garland's, writings and opinions as a basis for many of his. I think he knows it should have been Merrick Garland, and that he's supposed to be ram rodded through because of his recent written opinion that a president shouldn't be investigated.

Wait..........so you guys are riding the fence on this saying its justified because Garland, who Obama wanted, but then saying that he shouldnt be placed as a judge because he agreed with Garland on some policies......

.........do you people not see the lunacy here?

Where have I ever said it was "justified?" It was, however, inevitable, and Kavanaugh should have understood that. Any nomination this close to an election would have been borked.

A hard nomination is one thing, one slandered with accusations of a sexual assault that from all evidence probably didnt happen is another.......

Its one thing not to nominate someone based on their views, or their politics.......this is not that.......

Come on man , have some freaking integrity

a reply to: UKTruth

We should not assume that a person accusing another of assault is automatically a liar.

We should not assume that a person being accused of assault is automatically guilty.

It is possible to stay neutral and decent to both parties here.


You understand that if they go before a judge that judge before hearing any evidence by ether party will stay neutral.

Until proven otherwise these are TWO innocent people.

Watching the right attack christine is disgusting, why not just let the law do its job?

Watching the left attack brett is disgusting, why not just let the law do its job?

Politics and propaganda coming from both sides in this.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

agreed, based on evidence.........of which there is none.........

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: CynConcepts

There is nothing suspicious regarding these folks rallying and speaking their truth. One couple said they just began contacting everyone.

What did they ask, specifically? Did they verify the identities? Online statements mean nothing. In any event, it is irrelevant. Kavanaugh should have known better than to accept the nomination. He should have known the Democrats would bork him.

They all signed and submitted this letter to the Senate Committee.

The Associated Press did a thorough article regarding this, just clink the links to read the facts.

Not a sworn affidavit, it is a letter of opinion. It is a character reference, not an eyewitness report of a specific incident.

Yes, it is. Never said it was an eye witness report. You were querying what it said and how we're the signatures obtained. I provided the factual evidence for you to discern.

The actual witnesses that Ford named were interviewed and gave sworn statements to the Senate Committee. That is the official process that Ford has not completed at this time. The actual statements have not been released due to being a hearing on these matters have not occurred due to Ford's delay. Confirmation that none have corroborated Ford's allegation have been released.

To understand the actual way this whole process works here is an actual Letter sent to the Democratic Minority party to explain what their actual duties are. Apparently, they have been having difficulty in comprehending what they were elected to do.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: CynConcepts

Constitutional crisis? Yeah, I really don't see that as extreme as you apparently.

Let's discuss this after the Mueller report, okay?

Then why focus on integrity of any Supreme Court Judge...because according to you none of them have any integrity!

Where did I say that? The strawmen on this thread are a fire hazard.

Okay, you keep derailing the thread and others are the straw men ...ahem or woman in my case. Hahahahaha...you are just having fun trolling, aren't you. I will laugh since you did a good job of snookering me in...I will give you that.

The only "constitutional crisis": I see is leftist politicians suspending the 5th Amendment.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Come on man , have some freaking integrity

I am not the one who has made up their mind about the accusations. As I have repeatedly said, it does not matter whether or not they are true. I remain open minded to the facts. One of the facts is that this situation was inevitable, and in my opinion, Kavanaugh should have known that.

a reply to: DJW001

I am not the one who has made up their mind about the accusations

Based on evidence, and also subject to change based on evidence, thats how being objective works.

As I have repeatedly said, it does not matter whether or not they are true

Uhhh........it absolutely SHOULD matter if its true, the fact you have this mindset is disturbing to say the least but explains a lot of your mindset on this thread

I remain open minded to the facts.

Yet youve admitted that it doesnt matter if its true or not, and fought against the facts presented to you, sorry.........I dont believe you.......

One of the facts is that this situation was inevitable, and in my opinion, Kavanaugh should have known that.

Its inevitable that someone running for the position would be accused of sexual assault?


Really?

This is why we cant debate, all reason and logic as completely left your brain.

But all in all its fine, deny him, then we will get someone else in there SUPREMELY conservative like, Napalitano or someone else that will really piss you guys off.......

Kind of like how you guys dont think past impeaching Trump and having the VP who is much more hard lined take his place..........

You guys dont think ahead at all........

Keep pushing......by all means

a reply to: Sookiechacha

and that he's supposed to be ram rodded through because of his recent written opinion that a president shouldn't be investigated.

Your point? The POTUS can select a SCOTUS justice based on whatever criteria he wants. It is up to him, and only him, to nominate/appoint federal officials.

...and yes, his POV on that issue is excellent. It ensures no career DOJ employee (someone who works for and underneath the POTUS, actually) can interfere with a Presidency. It also prevents the so-called "legal coup" from occurring by requiring impeachment/conviction before any criminal charges can even proceed.

Otherwise, we allow our President/WH to be held hostage by unelected DOJ insiders. And given the deep state evidence we've seen so much of, there is not a chance in hell that would be acceptable for any reason under any circumstance in any reality at any point for any possible cause.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This is why we cant debate, all reason and logic as completely left your brain.

They don't want to debate. They want to obstruct, deflect, distract, obfuscate, block, resist, deny, disparage, discredit, delegitimize, subvert and otherwise s### on precious Constitution.

All so they can get more handouts ("free" healthcare, "free" food, "free" housing, "free" education, "free" "free" "free" - at our expense of course) and signal their oh so virtuous virtues through virtue signalling to the rest of the country (which doesn't give a hoot about politics)

a reply to: JBurns



I am amazed at how some people seem to be unable to see past a headline, an opinion spouted from some talking head, or the weak sauce coming out of the mouths of the haters on The View, Rachel Maddow, CNN, etc.

Take your example of Judge Kavanaugh's opinion about presidential criminal investigations. Did the criticizers read the opinion? Did they peel back the layers and evaluate the logical and rational reasons given? Do they understand what the written law says and what the precedents are?

Probably not. They probably heard Joy Behar or Rachel Maddow or some other hater jibber-jabber in a hyper emotional rant, and that was good enough for them!

a reply to: JBurns

........ s### on precious Constitution.

Or, as Kamala Harris called it (when interrogating BK): "that little book you carry around".