It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

page: 158
79
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


The version of Devils triangle that they are talking about goes like this:
One shot glass each of Tequila, beer, pee. Other then that it's the same rules as quarters, but since you don't know if the glass you get has either of the three contents until after you drink it.




posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Wayfarer




Devils Triangle: I was in a fraternity, and there was no quarters game called Devil's Triangle.


It's exactly what Kavanaugh and Judge tried do with Dr Ford, but were too drunk to pull it off.


Based on the numerous people who have said that about him? Or the one liar who changed her story 5 times? I'll stick with that's another liberal lie.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

And we care about an innuendo he made 35 years ago as a joke, assuming it's related to sex, why?

ETA: I played games in HS and college that we made up and you would never find on Google or anyone that has any knowledge of it.


Its not the innuendo or the implication of having sex (via whatever codewords he and his friends used at the time) that's the problem, but rather him lying about it for whatever reason.


And the problem here is that you are making the assumption that these are codewords and not what he says they were because *you* don't know about a game called Devil's Triangle; therefore, because you haven't heard of it, he must be lying. And thus, this must prove everything Ford says is true?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




In fact, someone mentioned that the Democrats are already holding up 150 current nominations for other positions they are refusing to fill.


Citation please. That sounds more like how the Republicans blocked hundreds of Obama's judicial nominees.



Turnabout is fair play.


Then you think it's fair for the Democrats to delay Kavanaugh's nomination as "turnabout" for Merrick Garland?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

And?

Just because there wasn't where you were at doesn't mean there never was one.

You do know that sometimes there are local and regional variants of things? Right? Even local and regional names for things?


Sure, its purely anecdotal, but its still suspicious akin to me using a descriptor like 'Gangbang' to label a frat game where we all sit around in a drum circle....



I am pretty sure Senator Blumenthal is an expert and actually semi pro at being the cracker in a circle jerk. Is it racist to refer to Blumenthal as a semi pro cracker?
edit on 28-9-2018 by PubertJohnston because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not sure why people keep repeating that. That will not apply until the 2020 cycle. There is no Presidential election this year.


Because the standard Mitch McConnell espoused whilst delaying Garlands nomination for almost a year until it expired, was during an "election" year. Not a "Presidential" election year. A SCOTUS nomination requires the approval and consent of the senate in addition to the executive branch. Both offices are directly relevant to "election year" and there is very much a Senate Election in a little over a months time.

That's a lie. They were following the Biden rule, Presidential election year. Stop lying.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Wayfarer

Well, he didn't lie, so what's your problem?


Technically he has lied under oath a couple of times already.

Specifically when he repeatedly claimed that Dr. Ford's friend "Refuted" the Allegation, when she had only said she did not recollect being there, but did in fact believe Dr. Ford.

A distinction that any court would take issue with and contemplate a perjury charge.

Either way, his apparent willingness to lie or distort facts to suite his argument is disqualifying for positions in the Judiciary.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

And we care about an innuendo he made 35 years ago as a joke, assuming it's related to sex, why?

ETA: I played games in HS and college that we made up and you would never find on Google or anyone that has any knowledge of it.


Its not the innuendo or the implication of having sex (via whatever codewords he and his friends used at the time) that's the problem, but rather him lying about it for whatever reason.


And the problem here is that you are making the assumption that these are codewords and not what he says they were because *you* don't know about a game called Devil's Triangle; therefore, because you haven't heard of it, he must be lying. And thus, this must prove everything Ford says is true?


No, it proves nothing, and I never said it proved anything either. I just said its suspicious that a game that's well known was co-opted to cover for a much more benign game of quarters (from my experience).



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh well, when we get down into semantics like that. That's totally on par with having different numbers of people at your rape party and different mixes of genders every time you recount your allegation ...



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck


You both are projecting your political bias upon reality. Both afraid to take another look, based upon new allegations. Not good enough.

The new allegations have already been hashed to death.
Not by the FBI, it ain't. Lots of bobbing and weaving on that one but she's agreed...he won't. Says much to me. If he's clear, then go for it!


originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: PubertJohnston
Anyone who doesn't believe me obviously hates babies.

Psst... look at who's the supporting party of abortion. You're stating the obvious already. Just sayin'
So is it equally fair to speak in terms of 'the party of letting women choose' and 'the party of not not letting women choose'?

More like, we're the party of personal responsibility.
Looks a little more like the party of forcing your choice upon others.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

You obviously have zero understanding of what perjury is and how sworn testimony works.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555


Merrick Garland's treatment was inexcusable.

Never the less, the rush to confirm Kavanaugh before the mid term elections can't be denied. The President and the Republicans HAVE to force this through, because they believe they might lose power after the elections. Kavanaugh is their their Hail Mary.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

And if the Judge wrote Blackout on his calendar, they would have said it proved he was blackout drunk even if he said he was volunteering at a Senior Center and it referred to them playing Blackout variant.

You'd be here whining because he simply didn't write Bingo or something.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

And we care about an innuendo he made 35 years ago as a joke, assuming it's related to sex, why?

ETA: I played games in HS and college that we made up and you would never find on Google or anyone that has any knowledge of it.


Its not the innuendo or the implication of having sex (via whatever codewords he and his friends used at the time) that's the problem, but rather him lying about it for whatever reason.


And the problem here is that you are making the assumption that these are codewords and not what he says they were because *you* don't know about a game called Devil's Triangle; therefore, because you haven't heard of it, he must be lying. And thus, this must prove everything Ford says is true?


Never heard of the Quarters Game called "Devil's Triangle" and I played a shameful amount of quarters games in the 1980's. Used to roll it off the nose, flip it off the back of the hand, the whole bit. Kids probably just have apps for that these days.

I would argue there is not anyone that ever heard of "Devil's Triangle'" as a game of quarters with three glasses in a triangle.

I have heard of the opposite vulgar definition though.

That would be a good question to ask Kavenaugh friends. What they remember "Devil's Triangle" being. Was it a drinking game they played? Or would they not "recollect".


edit on 28-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The issue being raised by this is that if the Democrats really wanted a full investigation as they claim, then they shouldn't have sat on the complaint until the last minute. The same goes for Ford, if she was serious about what she was implying, then why didn't she go to the Maryland State police about it instead of the Washington Post?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

This is my entire problem with this fiasco. If you or your Senator had a problem with what Kavanaugh did as a judge or when he was on the Star Council then why didn't you or your Senator get your ducks in a row and have him disbarred nor impeach him from the DC Court? Why didn't you have your ducks in a row to bring a a cogent case before the Senate for alll these weeks since his nomination. What about when he was short listed in Nov 2017?

Instead nothing was done except latching onto the emotions of anonymous allegation and a thoroughly (IMO) unbelievable woman who worked everyone up into a frenzy over nothing but a bunch of feels.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Blaine91555


Merrick Garland's treatment was inexcusable.

Never the less, the rush to confirm Kavanaugh before the mid term elections can't be denied. The President and the Republicans HAVE to force this through, because they believe they might lose power after the elections. Kavanaugh is their their Hail Mary.




What rush? The Democrats have already dragged this along, just like the last time Kavanaugh's name was in front of them. Is it a conspiracy that the Republicans want a full court in place before the Oct 7th session?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

And if the Judge wrote Blackout on his calendar, they would have said it proved he was blackout drunk even if he said he was volunteering at a Senior Center and it referred to them playing Blackout variant.

You'd be here whining because he simply didn't write Bingo or something.


I'm not whining dude, I'm saying it sounds suspicious to me. I think you're projecting a bit too much here. He very well could be telling the truth and they've got their own version of quarters or whatever, it just caught my attention as someone who has frequently heard the term 'Devils Triangle' from my friends/acquaintances and it never once referenced a quarters game.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's not suspicious because it's a pointless question to ask anyways and he answered it easy.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
What is everyone going to say when the FBI comes back a day later and says there is nothing? When they say we can't even get a warrant based on these allegations? The FBI can't Constitutionally just investigate people. There has to be something to actually look at and reason to believe a crime may have been committed.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join