Ford Friend McClean Refutes Polygraph Claim of Ford's Ex-Boyfriend

a reply to: projectvxn

You've refused to acknowledge all the circumstances surrounding this case.

I have? Could you give me an example of what you're talking about?

Reminds me of how much evidence you dismissed with regard to the Russian collusion story that isn't a thing.

Now you're just talking #. I've never claimed that Donald Trump "colluded" with the Russians. In fact, I've said on numerous occasions that I didn't believe that he had, going all the way back to when it first became a topic of discussion.

Talk about spurious allegations.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
But outside, no?

Absolutely not, it's an asinine concept with no basis of enforcement within the Constitution.

a reply to: loam

Not surprising, when many of your posts demonstrate that very point about yourself.

Oh no! You I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I'd me twice in a row! *cry*

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
But outside, no?

Absolutely not, it's an asinine concept with no basis of enforcement within the Constitution.

Enforcement? No I’m speaking about rational human beings considering someone’s guilt or innocence. You know, the same reasons we don’t determine guilt or innocence by seeing whether someone floats or not.

How do you determine someone’s guilt or innocence?

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Enforcement? No I’m speaking about rational human beings considering someone’s guilt or innocence.

Ever been on jury duty? That's how you determine someone else's guilt or innocence.

How do you determine someone’s guilt or innocence?

Uh, in a court of law. Where the hell else would you do it?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ever been on jury duty? That's how you determine someone else's guilt or innocence.

Many wrongfully imprisoned people would disagree with you.

Uh, in a court of law. Where the hell else would you do it?

Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Many wrongfully imprisoned people would disagree with you.

Which is why due process doesn't end with a conviction or imprisonment. Many people wrongly imprisoned are now free and able to seek restitution for the wrong done. But this isn't even relevant to your pedantic argument about due process.

Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.

I don't eat cookies, juries don't investigate theft, that would be law enforcement and you didn't answer my question. How do you get due process without the judiciary?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Many wrongfully imprisoned people would disagree with you.

Which is why due process doesn't end with a conviction or imprisonment. Many people wrongly imprisoned are now free and able to seek restitution for the wrong done. But this isn't even relevant to your pedantic argument about due process.

Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.

I don't eat cookies, juries don't investigate theft, that would be law enforcement and you didn't answer my question. How do you get due process without the judiciary?

You afford him the same rights as if it was a judiciary. Rather than being swayed by the court of public opinion, we act reasonable, fairly, and justly towards the accused. Why wouldn’t you do that.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
You afford him the same rights as if it was a judiciary.

Oh, why didn't you say so? Where does this goofiness end? Can you have op-ed pieces? Can people voice their opinion without some panty waist partisan hack being offended and feeling martyred? Hah, and you said I was litigious. You want to take the court out of the court and apply it to scenarios where it was never meant to be applied.

We're back to: 'Some said sumptin bout mah boi and I don'ts like it!'

Rather than being swayed by the court of public opinion, we act reasonable, fairly, and justly towards the accused. Why wouldn’t you do that.

I think all the marys need to come to the realization that the court of public opinion isn't a real court and that people will always have opinions on all matters without any type of overall consensus.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I never said nor implied the court of opinion was a real court.

I’m saying a man’s reputation, his future, his familiy’s future, is being destroyed without applying process of determining whether doing so is justified, without due process. This process can be applied by any man, group of men, any society, and it has been for centuries, so much so that it is codified into law. Whether you will or not is up to you, but I can see you’ve used more superficial complaints to guide your thinking.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.

That's awfully (and abruptly) dismissive of trial by jury.

And I think you're trying to have your cookie and eat it too. I bet if someone stole your cookie and you saw who did it, you wouldn't let the lack of bodycam footage stop you from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the nominee before them was a goddamn cookie thieving sonofawhore.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

Not surprising, when many of your posts demonstrate that very point about yourself.

Oh no! You I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I'd me twice in a row! *cry*

You are the gift that keeps giving.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.

That's awfully (and abruptly) dismissive of trial by jury.

And I think you're trying to have your cookie and eat it too. I bet if someone stole your cookie and you saw who did it, you wouldn't let the lack of bodycam footage stop you from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the nominee before them was a goddamn cookie thieving sonofawhore.

Maybe but I bet most of us would remember which day of the week they stole our cookie. Probably where we were when it happened. Hell, most of us would have witnesses from yelling profanity at the person who stole our cookie. But hey..it's delicious cookies and not something unimportant as sexual assault right?

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
I never said nor implied the court of opinion was a real court.

But your whining that Krybaby isn't getting his due process.

I’m saying a man’s reputation, his future, his familiy’s future, is being destroyed without applying process of determining whether doing so is justified, without due process.

Than that 'man' should sue and get some due process.

This process can be applied by any man, group of men, any society, and it has been for centuries, so much so that it is codified into law.

Right. And how does one get the benefit of the law?

Whether you will or not is up to you, but I can see you’ve used more superficial complaints to guide your thinking.

If you think the equal application of the law is 'superficial' that's your set of mental gymnastics to work through.

originally posted by: Anathros
Maybe but I bet most of us would remember which day of the week they stole our cookie. Probably where we were when it happened. Hell, most of us would have witnesses from yelling profanity at the person who stole our cookie. But hey..it's delicious cookies and not something unimportant as sexual assault right?

Not me, I tend to mark those down on my calendar which I save in a neatly organized pile in case future generations needs to know the truth.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Anathros
Maybe but I bet most of us would remember which day of the week they stole our cookie. Probably where we were when it happened. Hell, most of us would have witnesses from yelling profanity at the person who stole our cookie. But hey..it's delicious cookies and not something unimportant as sexual assault right?

Not me, I tend to mark those down on my calendar which I save in a neatly organized pile in case future generations needs to know the truth.

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-for real?

originally posted by: Anathros
F-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-for real?

Yeah. You never know when some dip**** may accuse you of something and you need to show that your cookie was the victim and not them.

i have never had to undertake interogation under polygraph analysis

but if i had - i would not want those that administered it to know that i had had " preparation "

if i had nothing to hide why would i prepare ?

i has been interviewed " under caution " - far too many times - and yup - when i knew it was coming // expected - i did " prepare - but only to deflect my guilt or avoid incriminating 3rd parties

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Anathros
Maybe but I bet most of us would remember which day of the week they stole our cookie. Probably where we were when it happened. Hell, most of us would have witnesses from yelling profanity at the person who stole our cookie. But hey..it's delicious cookies and not something unimportant as sexual assault right?

Not me, I tend to mark those down on my calendar which I save in a neatly organized pile in case future generations needs to know the truth.

Baking cookies with squi?

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Baking cookies with squi?

You know it son.