Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I accuse you of producing kiddy porn, would I not have to produce the evidence?
Or should people simple believe me that you are a producer and purveyor of illegal filth?
Think about it RedZin. Think very, very deeply about it. It is the bedrock of what makes for a decent system of both society and governance.
Or are you simply advocating kangaroo courts when it suits your ideology?
I do not expect you to answer (you never answer the tough questions), but think about it.
Think ....
I'm usually pretty tolerant of the constant swipes people take at me in here because I guess it makes them feel better to take pot shots at a moderator, but let's put this to rest.
I don't "never answer tough questions."
I often "don't realize anyone responded in a given thread."
While I do post here quite a bit some days, I am also pretty busy others and there are people here who can sit on here 24/7, but I am not one of them.
So, your "tough" question....
IF this was an actual court case where someone may be going to jail, of COURSE I would expect enough evidence to actually prosecute.
Since this is a job interview, I merely expect the accuser to be heard and for the person being accused to behave in a professional manner.
He did not.
Ergo, I would show him the door.
No partisan crap, because I don't belong to a party.
He was a loon yesterday. Just like the guy who wants to put him on the bench so he can do him favors.
I want a fair court. And, no, I really didn't like Gorsuch, but I DID think his nomination was fair, since the Rs had no intentions whatsoever of considering Garland. That was on them, not Gorsuch. He did just fine during his confirmation hearings.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Why would she come forward if it wasn't true. What does she have to gain.
What are you, 12? Seriously? She was at the women's march wearing a p###y hat. What the heck do you THINK she has to gain? She hired an activist lawyer. WHY? Why would someone do that.
What are you, 12? Seriously? She was at the women's march wearing a p###y hat. What the heck do you THINK she has to gain? She hired an activist lawyer. WHY? Why would someone do that.
No she was not. She attended a women in science meeting wearing a brain hat.
I'm usually pretty tolerant of the constant swipes people take at me in here because I guess it makes them feel better to take pot shots at a moderator, but let's put this to rest.
I don't "never answer tough questions."
I often "don't realize anyone responded in a given thread."
While I do post here quite a bit some days, I am also pretty busy others and there are people here who can sit on here 24/7, but I am not one of them.
So, your "tough" question....
IF this was an actual court case where someone may be going to jail, of COURSE I would expect enough evidence to actually prosecute.
Since this is a job interview, I merely expect the accuser to be heard and for the person being accused to behave in a professional manner.
He did not.
Ergo, I would show him the door.
No partisan crap, because I don't belong to a party.
He was a loon yesterday. Just like the guy who wants to put him on the bench so he can do him favors.
I want a fair court. And, no, I really didn't like Gorsuch, but I DID think his nomination was fair, since the Rs had no intentions whatsoever of considering Garland. That was on them, not Gorsuch. He did just fine during his confirmation hearings.
Nobody is taking a swipe at you. I pointed out your inconsistencies and did so in a respectful if tough manner.
You keep asking the same question (aka thinly veiled accusation) over and over when it has been adequately answered over and over. You have your answer. If is clearly not the one you like, but it is the truth. Therefore, there is no reason to be indignant when someone calls you out on it. More than once I might add.
And someone could go to jail-one of those two perjured themselves yesterday.
And if you are so tolerant, why do you want to throw away all semblance of due process and fairness? Really, I would like to know that.
Back to the FBI, last week that was a legitimate question. It has now been honestly answered multiple times. I would be obliged if you and others would stop asking it.
What are you, 12? Seriously? She was at the women's march wearing a p###y hat. What the heck do you THINK she has to gain? She hired an activist lawyer. WHY? Why would someone do that.
these people have very late stage TDS. you cannot reason with them. TDS renders the brain useless therefore they can only reason with feelings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
