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.

 

Stop defending people you don't personally know it's a joke

page: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults
To be honest, I wondered that myself. He still plays the Hegelian left/right game though. Remember he and Kerry both were in Skull and Bones Secret society when they ran as opposing teams in 04. Kavanaugh apparently does support the Patriot Act and surveillance system. That worries me, but he is more conservative than anyone the Democrats would put on the Supreme Court. Dr Ford, on the other hand, heads up the cia internship program at Stanford U(don’t let that fake little girl voice fool you for sympathy). She is as fake as they come and with nefarious intent based on the fear of the Deep State to lose control and have Roe Wade overturned and as I hear it some arrests made.
Strangely, a lot of people are believing that woman with no evidence and no corroboration and not one person to back her up, yet all these Democrats giving her all this attention for their political gain. Ironically there are lots of people posting on social media that they are done voting for Democrats.
edit on 30-9-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Does he support them or simply support established law?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 By them do you mean the Bush family ? I wouldn’t know, but I would imagine the law. I’d have to go find his original statement and a lot of people were posting about it on fb.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: toysforadults

I’ll tepeat this here


I don’t really care about the players involved as much as defending the concept of innocent until proven guilty

Sorry that defending that, which is one of the foundations of our country, is seen as a distraction to you


I come across as a Trump supporter and I defended Kavanaugh. But I believe in a much more socialist leaning world (minus the fascist running it).

What I support like you is the constitution and rule of law which both these men seem to support. Those in politics that oppose Trump seem to think the constitution is a nuisance to their globalist agenda.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Not Bush, Patriot act.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults




You don't know any of these people. You have never met them and know nothing other than what you've been told by the media. Give it a break.


EXACTLY! I find it disgusting and cult like. I see this on video followers they "love" the video provider. They say things as though they were their best friend or even Family. In every walk of life on media where people can pretend others are what they want to believe, People are forming groupies and following others they (DON"T KNOW) just like cults they protect and will scream their head off at anyone they feel attacked their chosen!



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

to me they are both spoiled rich kids who are highly connected establishment DC types

screw em both



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

he's a spoiled rich kid 3rd generation Yale secret society douche playing the roll of bad guy for the left/right paradigm

who cares why are guys arguing over this day in and day out defending these people?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: SeaWorthy

to me they are both spoiled rich kids who are highly connected establishment DC types

screw em both


lol

Brett was a show no mercy type in the Starr investigation. He shouldn't expect the same when it comes to him?

History show it gets nasty in politics.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Thanks to the OP for posting and I agree.

Although I do find it interesting, I also defend innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No person should be brought down on accusations alone weather a republican or a democrat. (I remember the 'gated pizza' thing and how people jumped on that bandwagon and that was truly disgusting too.)

The other thing I do know (as an outsider who enjoys watching the drama of US politics unfold) is if the tables were turned and the governing party was the democrats, and they appointed someone to the supreme court who was accused in a 'he said she said scenario', many people on this site would have tons of hatred towards the accused due to political affiliation alone. They probably would bring pedophilia into the picture as well being that some of alleged some of the alleged assaults happened when people were underage.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JimD350

applying the same mentality of innocent until proven guilty should we automatically assume she's lying?

if I were to be fair and balanced I would have to admit she may be telling the truth until proven otherwise right?? funny how the hacky partisanship kinda dictates everyones logic to some degree (not talking about you)

I just find it gross how everyone is willing to side with the D's or R's so willingly when they have both been selling us out since 1913 and maybe even sooner

they both suck



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

yeah who knows



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JimD350

There seem to be little honor on both sides, but that is today's environment.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AboveBoard

Sure.

Let me ask you: how would you know he lied about it under oath? What evidence could possibly prove he lied?

And also let me ask you: what good does a simple strawman ("if he lies") do in a world where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven? Its like that old saying, "If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hit the ground" implies..."if" is typically from the realm of the ludicrous.


Hm. Well if he lied about anything during his Testimony that would be a problem, no?
Being presumed innocent is a good thing. I don’t know if he is or not.

That is why it’s a good thing the FBI will clear this up. That is why it’s important, not to try and catch him in a lie, it to determine the truth as best they can.

It seems like he is lying about being a heavy drinker but I wasn’t there so???

If he is innocent, it is a terrible injustice and injury that this has happened to him. If he is exactly who he said he was on Fox News then it is a very bad charge indeed. If someone said my husband (who literally has never had a drink in his life) did the same thing and it was on a national stage, I would be beyond livid and deeply disturbed.

I get that.

Presumption of innocence doesn’t mean he IS innocent, it means that unless it’s proved otherwise, he cannot be held responsible for a crime.

There’s a difference.

Thus the “if” which is being applied here. It implies a question, not a verdict.

Should someone with an accusation not be heard at all because of the presumption of innocence? Should we not afford the presumption of innocence to the accuser as well, that they are genuine in their complaint, unless proven otherwise? It is very hard to investigate something so old but it is the job of the FBI to do this now.

And it’s one week. One week to give this a normal process. Is that too much to ask? It isn’t 400 days, like Merrik Garland.

I’m not chanting “Lock him up!” over this. I’m simply saying I don’t know. I would like to know more to see who is most likely telling the truth. It’s a lifetime appointment. I would hope that a cautious and thorough approach would be the norm here.






posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Garland was investigated by the FBI for 400 days? Source please.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AboveBoard

Garland was investigated by the FBI for 400 days? Source please.


He was denied a hearing by McConnel for about 400 days so they could stack SCOTUS with “conservative” judges because Obama.

That is what I’m referring to. I’m sorry if that was not clear.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

"Heavy drinker" is a subjective term. I can't imagine how you can consider any statement made regarding that as a lie. It would be like me pointing out that women who claim they are fat are lying...are they? Its a subjective statement...its lie proof.

"Presumption of innocence" means you presume he is innocent until proven otherwise. I.e., you really have no reason to question his innocence without something giving you reason. "In between the lines" nonsense like trying to pin a lie on him for stating he wasn't a heavy drinker absolutely does not rise to the level of evidence.

There is nothing normal about this. So "normal process"....i'd challenge you to find any prior examples that can make this normal. God I hope it never becomes normal. I have 2 sons, and I hope that the mere allegation of sexual impropriety isn't enough to have the presumption of innocence cast aside, and a bunch of "ifs" attached to their name..

I'd expect that 6 prior investigations into the man would be "thorough". At least thorough enough to have even a whispher of the behaviors being alleged here. There aren't. Isn't that thorough?

If you don't believe so...im curious if you think the FBI could do a "thorough" investigation into Hillary's emails in 48 hours? Why the faith in them then, but not now? I mean...50k+ emails in 48 hours is pretty impressive. You don't think 6 investigations into a man by the same people ove rhe course of months/years would yield better results?
edit on 9/30/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

if you have to presume he's innocent than does that mean you automatically presume she's lying or telling the truth?

you see how they don't work together very well?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: JimD350

There seem to be little honor on both sides, but that is today's environment.


^^^^^

I will say I am totally sick of SJWs I mean I am really sick of their #



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

if you have to presume he's innocent than does that mean you automatically presume she's lying or telling the truth?

you see how they don't work together very well?


Why would you believe the accuser and overturn CENTURIES of western jurisprudence in the process? If they want to be believed, they have to PROVE IT.

They work together just fine....you just seem to be ignoring that its her job to prove her allegations.




top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join