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 he told the committee it was legal for him to drink beer when he was a senior in high school he lied. Drinking age in Maryland was 21. Unless he was held back for 3 years and was 21 as a senior.
It was still 18 when he was a senior and then changed back to 21. Yale is in Connecticut, they changed their drinking age from 18 to 19. The Feds figured out a way to force States to raise the drinking age - they used a Highway funding bill (1984) that would deny Highway funds to any State that did not have the age of 21 as Legal to buy alcohol. States changed their ages at different dates.
I missed the entire "drink at 18" thing .... by the time they lowered it, I was 21.
Let me remind you that this was a criminal case, requiring a beyond a reasonable doubt. Not confirming Kav requires no such standard. If I was accused of violating a woman against her will while applying for a job, the interview committee could reject my application just from the allegation. Nobody has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Apart from that, Kave clearly lied repeatedly to the Senate under oath. That alone should be disqualifying.
The Hill posted a poll stating that 48 percent of Americans believe Ford over Kavanaugh. Eleven percent are undecided. I hate to nitpick but that's not "most Americans" just for the record.
If all you have is warm ice and you need it somewhat chilled, the only quick option is to add ice to cool it and drink it sufficiently fast before the melting ice dilutes the beer.
I have seen people do this.
I think you should contact your Senator and tell them this.
I have still not heard of a valid reason why Ford scrubbed all her internet presence. Was there something there that would have made her testimony less credible.
And how do you scrub something that is under someone's control. If I posted an article or hosted a video of a lecture that involved me and Dr. Ford, how can she remove those articles and videos without my permission and knowledge. I can't believe you can be a professor and not have any internet presence at all. Something does not jell here.
Let me remind you that this was a criminal case, requiring a beyond a reasonable doubt. Not confirming Kav requires no such standard. If I was accused of violating a woman against her will while applying for a job, the interview committee could reject my application just from the allegation. Nobody has to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Apart from that, Kave clearly lied repeatedly to the Senate under oath. That alone should be disqualifying.
In case anybody does not bother to link to this, the case involves a woman who claimed rape right after it happened, not 35 years later. How is this comparable?
I have still not heard of a valid reason why Ford scrubbed all her internet presence. Was there something there that would have made her testimony less credible.
And how do you scrub something that is under someone's control. If I posted an article or hosted a video of a lecture that involved me and Dr. Ford, how can she remove those articles and videos without my permission and knowledge. I can't believe you can be a professor and not have any internet presence at all. Something does not jell here.
Modern technology - amazing!
I mean, apparently someone or some entity has been able to totally remove her online presence - even though she even met her husband on an online dating site. She's old enough to have had a MySpace account for that matter - I guess even that's gone!
But like you, I'm amazed that there is NOTHING out there apparently. That's one serious scrub. Not one that some private citizen sitting at their computer at home could pull off.
Even her high school yearbooks have been taken off the internet, after they were redacted. But someone did save that info and you can find it - I mean, not HERS personally but yearbooks from her high school during the years she attended it. Wow, those were some interesting reads.
But that's old news. We're totally off the yearbooks now and on to throwing ice in someone's face in 1985.
The Hill posted a poll stating that 48 percent of Americans believe Ford over Kavanaugh. Eleven percent are undecided. I hate to nitpick but that's not "most Americans" just for the record.
Is there a category for believing neither. I think both of them have skeletons in their closet that they do not want to come out until the final bell of the 15th round.
I think both of them are used as pawns in a chess game being played by democrats and republicans. Both are considered expendable as used rags after either victory or defeat, with no further thought.
Is there a category for believing neither. I think both of them have skeletons in their closet that they do not want to come out until the final bell of the 15th round.
I think both of them are used as pawns in a chess game being plated by democrats and republicans. Both are considered expendable as used rags after either victory or defeat, with no further thought.
Yes, according to that poll, eleven percent apparently don't believe either one.
I mean, apparently someone or some entity has been able to totally remove her online presence - even though she even met her husband on an online dating site. She's old enough to have had a MySpace account for that matter - I guess even that's gone!
But like you, I'm amazed that there is NOTHING out there apparently. That's one serious scrub. Not one that some private citizen sitting at their computer at home could pull off.
Even her high school yearbooks have been taken off the internet, after they were redacted. But someone did save that info and you can find it - I mean, not HERS personally but yearbooks from her high school during the years she attended it. Wow, those were some interesting reads.
But that's old news. We're totally off the yearbooks now and on to throwing ice in someone's face in 1985.
Feinstein probably recommended a hacker at the same time she recommended a lawyer.
In case anybody does not bother to link to this, the case involves a woman who claimed rape right after it happened, not 35 years later. How is this comparable?
And the man in question admitted to having sex with her. The only question was if it was consensual. It's a very poor example at best.
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.
