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.
Of course the 'PROVEN' PERJURER was lying, just as he lied under oath about 18 being the legal drinking age in Maryland in 1982,IT WAS 21! HE WASN'T even 18,until 1983, so the creep was drinking illegally!
Hopefully when the Dems win back control.....they will impeach the piece of garbage!
Poll: Kavanaugh confirmation energizes Democrats more than GOP
And following the GOP-led effort to push through his nomination, enthusiasm among Democratic voters has surged. More than 3 in 4 Democrats (77 percent) say they are “very motivated” to turn out and vote in the midterms — more than the 68 percent of Republicans who say they’re “very motivated.” Poll: Kavanaugh confirmation energizes Democrats more than GOP
I'd suggest you research your bolded claim further before embarrassing yourself further.
If you can't do a basic internet search you can look in the last closed thread for the actual law that was in effect at the time he was drinking as I posted a link and description. At that time the drinking age was in fact 18 and at some point in that year the law changed BUT part of it all hinged on your birthday as it wasn't retroactive. So some 18 year olds could drink in that year while others couldn't.
Nice try though and an epic rabid TDS FAIL FAIL FAIL
What some don't seem to get or care about, is that it has all been a fight over what is right and what is wrong. Some believe in being honest and conduct themselves appropriately, while others apparently don't know the difference or don't feel it matters. (Funny, since many who don't seem to care about this often speak of "having values").
Since it is regularly demonstrated by one to be able to lie continuously and still get his way, he has set the tone and is paving the way for others to follow his lead.
What drew me to this initially was the Ford apparent trauma. Then Kavanaugh was politically combative (a mistake for better those words came from his defenders' mouths like Graham who handled it much more skillfully). Kavanaugh was seemingly evasive. He did not impress.
But then this is also a modern day morality play of sorts. I don't see much in simplistic terms. Absolute truths are sometimes hard to come by. It bothers me not a whit that some hold various beliefs that might contrast with mine. The world is not always the place we might want it to be. This is a democracy. Folks vote. Elections have consequences. (That does not excuse the legislator from acting on behalf of all his constituents, nor the executive from placing the country first, or the judge from making determinations within the bounds of the Constitution and existing case law.)
The windmill that I tilt at is when we allow our thoughts to be fashioned from manipulation and distortion. Sure, in the past the American people frequently were lied to but often we did not have the means to figure that out. Investigative reporting and the internet are now in our lives, maybe even for the worse.
Sure we might take the exact same set of "facts" and arrive at differing conclusions. In the end what held me to Ford's version was that even when the facts were not her friend she appeared to report the best she could. Even when her facts seemingly did not make sense. Kavanaugh, in contrast, distorted what he need not have.
That bothered me. Me, I'm not into wearing ***** hats nor pounding on Supreme Court doors. But when I see something I think distorted sometimes I'll take the time to type out why. My own private protest.
Do my interests maybe draw me towards one "side" (I do not think much of Trump). Maybe. But I do attempt for honesty, or at least as much as possible given the time I invest.
To be clearer ... I focused more on Ford (really paying little attention to Kavanaugh, other than the initial negative impression and that he used language at times more appropriate for an attorney-advocate than a judicial nominee).
Ford, I've said, should not have come forward. I've borrowed another poster's word to call that decision "immature." (Someone may be quite mature in most aspects of their lives but then demonstrate immature thinking in an area connected to some problematic area. One "victim" may choose to repress where another obsesses ... or perhaps someone alternates.)
Sure Ford should have expected vociferous attacks. That's the nature of our times. I just wince when the "attacks" appear to be distorted or all mixed up or reflect (one example) the child's game of telephone where each repetition transforms yet further. Or the alternate versions of the "truth" go unexamined.
Just the way it is ... and admittedly we're more sensitive to issues based on our past. That's why many pages back I typed out some stuff about my background in working with investigative court records. I once took a woman to Court for adjusting facts where I myself was threatened. I really do not like liars when they impact the welfare of others.
Now, of course, that's true for most with some thinking Ford the liar. I get that. But a distaste for how Kavanaugh was defended (that certainly includes Trump) is often based on more than the mere "political."
To be clearer ... I focused more on Ford (really paying little attention to Kavanaugh, other than the initial negative impression and that he used language at times more appropriate for an attorney-advocate than a judicial nominee).
Ford, I've said, should not have come forward. I've borrowed another poster's word to call that decision "immature." (Someone may be quite mature in most aspects of their lives but then demonstrate immature thinking in an area connected to some problematic area. One "victim" may choose to repress where another obsesses ... or perhaps someone alternates.)
Sure Ford should have expected vociferous attacks. That's the nature of our times. I just wince when the "attacks" appear to be distorted or all mixed up or reflect (one example) the child's game of telephone where each repetition transforms yet further. Or the alternate versions of the "truth" go unexamined.
Just the way it is ... and admittedly we're more sensitive to issues based on our past. That's why many pages back I typed out some stuff about my background in working with investigative court records. I once took a woman to Court for adjusting facts where I myself was threatened. I really do not like liars when they impact the welfare of others.
Now, of course, that's true for most with some thinking Ford the liar. I get that. But a distaste for how Kavanaugh was defended (that certainly includes Trump) is often based on more than the mere "political."
One also has to wonder what the hell the Congresscritters (State/Federal were thinking by allowing these accusations to come forward to begin with. I'm speaking of Di-Fi and Eschew who are clearly not ignorant of the law and who must have actual lawyers on their staffs to tell them this is would be impossible to prove and impossible to prosecute.
Surely someone should have said to Ford BEFORE this all came out "you really have no way of winning this, in fact you don't even have enough for even the local police to investigate forget about filing charges"
Surely someone had to tell her "you're going to pay a HUGE price for this, you will get threats and if this goes really badly you WILL destroy your reputation or at the very least cause people to look at you in a negative light from this day forward and this will most certainly bleed across into your family".
Surely SOMEONE had to have told her and yet she went forward anyway, the question is for what reason? Either they blew sunshine and daisies up her skirt OR she allowed herself to become a political pawn in a high stakes game for either political reasons or profit or both...
To be clearer ... I focused more on Ford (really paying little attention to Kavanaugh, other than the initial negative impression and that he used language at times more appropriate for an attorney-advocate than a judicial nominee). [snip]
That inquisition wasn't questioning Kavanaugh as a judicial nominee or as others call it, a 'job interview.' He was more like a defendant or hostile witness being grilled by a gaggle of prosecutors. He was, in that setting, an advocate. He went a little too far a few times, as he admitted [probably reluctantly]. There's still nobody who claims Kavanaugh fell short in impartiality, temperament, integrity, or legal knowledge during his 12-years as a judge.
That inquisition wasn't questioning Kavanaugh as a judicial nominee or as others call it, a 'job interview.' He was more like a defendant or hostile witness being grilled by a gaggle of prosecutors. He was, in that setting, an advocate. He went a little too far a few times, as he admitted [probably reluctantly]. There's still nobody who claims Kavanaugh fell short in impartiality, temperament, integrity, or legal knowledge during his 12-years as a judge.
This was never about Brett Kavanaugh. They would have slimed and smeared anyone who Trump put up for this job. Kavanaugh just happens to be who he nominated. Why we continue to entertain their poor loser slander campaign as anything but that is a mystery to me.
The problem here is not in any way related to Brett Kavanaugh. The problem is the absolutely despicable conduct of the Democrat left.
This was never about Brett Kavanaugh. They would have slimed and smeared anyone who Trump put up for this job. Kavanaugh just happens to be who he nominated. Why we continue to entertain their poor loser slander campaign as anything but that is a mystery to me.
The problem here is not in any way related to Brett Kavanaugh. The problem is the absolutely despicable conduct of the Democrat left.
Wow, a settled matter, still being adjudicated in the court of public opinion. He is Justice Kavanaugh now, and he'll remain that way until he retires or dies. He won't be impeached, there won't be a criminal indictment and prosecution of him, and he'll be there, on the court, fr the next 20-30 years at least.
One thing I find totally hysterical is the on-again/off-again nature of what his "hearing" was. For rights of of the accused, presumption of innocence, etc...NOT A TRIAL, NOT A COURT OF LAW. For trying to trip up witness and claim perjury....ABSOLUTELY A TRIAL, ABSOLUTELY A COURT OF LAW.
Which is it folks? Was he on trial, or wasn't he? Either way, it's over and he's a Supreme Court Associate Justice, and until there is a Democrat majority in the House and a 67 seat majority in the Senate, he'll keep on being Associate Justice Kavanaugh.
This was never about Brett Kavanaugh. They would have slimed and smeared anyone who Trump put up for this job. Kavanaugh just happens to be who he nominated. Why we continue to entertain their poor loser slander campaign as anything but that is a mystery to me.
The problem here is not in any way related to Brett Kavanaugh. The problem is the absolutely despicable conduct of the Democrat left.
This did not happen with Gorsuch. That should tell you it's entirely about Kavanaugh.
What a sad day for America. Let's hope this energizes the people to vote these Republicans out of office.
Yeah, guilty by innuendo is so much preferable.
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.
