I've been thinking about this
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
He asked what he would say. I’d think if she had been assaulted that is something he would say.... do you disagree?
Soros showed up with his checkbook.
He might suggest to her that she go to the police; but with Van I'm not sure that'd be the case. Some fundamentalist pastors don't believe that women should accuse men of sexual wrongdoing. So I'll let him speak for himself.
But in any case I don't think Van should go directly to the police without the congregant's authorization to do so . . . it's her life and her accusation to make, not his.
One of the women appears in TV ads defending Kav, so much have been a pretty big check
But N.B. that, while these anti-abortion GOP religious nuts protest abortions, label abortions as "murder" and picket abortion clinics, they never never never never atrend or monitor trials of people accused of killings like at liquor store robberies, drug deals gone bad and gang wars. Rightwinger GOP Fox News watchers simply don't care about these crimes, which they assume don't affect them.
Whoa . . . that's a mighty big target you're carrying there, Mark. Be ready to duck!
Talk about cheap talk threats. There is simply no way in hell these ultra-partisans are going to sit out and let Democrats take power and appoint justices. It is a total load of BS.
is there a //sarcasm smiley on this board?
edit: disappointed you'd think I was serious.
A), liberals are just terrible at politics period.
beyond belief level terrible.
it's almost like those who run the party are deliberately throwing the game.
B), never bought into the "in the middle" thing.
"the middle" implies agreeing with neither side, but rather having opinions between where the left is and where the right is.
i think/hope it's more accurate to say many agree with the right on some things, and with the left on others, and that doesn't just mean a split based on social vs economic.
fact is, i consider anyone who aligns too closely with either party across the board, (which would take in all the sock puppets here), as mindless puppets incapable of independent thought. (hard to have independent thought though, if you don't represent yourself).
those always "in the middle" aren't as bad as the party sycophants, but still need to muster some backbone.
that said, often, maybe usually, both sides are totally correct on issues relative to only their ox, but totally ignore that the other side, who's also trying to get through life, has an ox as well, and when different groups' best interests are served by very different policies, that doesn't mean the best solution is somewhere in the middle, but rather that the best solution usually requires a multi faceted approach that addresses the very real needs of both sides, not just having a political power play that will only address the needs of one side, while saying "f u, you lost", to the other side.
Yep, just like I appose Abortion as an act, not as a right. Now this is just me speaking for myself, NOT a party. I think it should be legal, but a MULTITUDE of options not only available but taught, as to why it should only be a last resort, in a specific type of incidents.
I have had a baby miscarried and I still think of what could have been. The wife and I even used the morning after pill once for totally selfish reasons. I can not even imagine what a women goes through 20 years after having aborted one intentionally. The problem is, often having that baby at THAT time, is imagined as the worst possible thing in the history of mankind for both the man or the women, only because it would be inconvenient.
Van from Washington, Indiana, probably cannot be defrocked, because I don't think he even has a frock. His posts say many things that a formally ordained minister would never say, such as the point you made about the clergy's prvilege. It is easy to start a Protestant congregation in a storefront and, with whatever respect is due to Vanpastorman, I suspect he has never been ordained by any recognized Protestant organization anyone has heard of. He is on this board to proselytize (i.e. market himself) to the rightwingers. No apparent intent by him to foster salvation or to save the world from sin. He spouts just enough scripture to blather.
Some folks aren't grown up enough to have sex, much less have a kid. But they don't know it until having the sex, or having/not having the kid, pushes them into growing up.
BTW, this post isn't directed at you; it's just pointing out how life forces us to grow out of our comfort zones - self-limitations - sometimes because of responsibilities we've created, and other times because of the consequences of the responsibilities we've avoided. But grow up we must, and most often, most do . . . despite of ourselves.
My thought too. What a crock of shit. You failed us so we're going to make sure we'll lose our SC majority, just to teach you a lesson.
K ALREADY hurt Ford, if you believe her accusation (and there’s plenty to suggest that she’s being truthful).
Was K’s name plastered all over the national media news when he was nominated for the circuit court appt? Most folks had no clue about anything he did- until he was nominated to the US SC. Which, plastered his name all over the news. And likely triggered anger in Ford (& the other accuser).
And, you have no clue about how the FBI investigates. It’s largely based on answers that K provided. And he’s damn sure not going to tell on himself on those questionnaires.
Now, the FBI COULD investigate further, now that credible accusations have been brought forward. But that would require the White House ordering a re-opening. But the pubs clearly aren’t interested in the truth. They’re interested in ramming this nomination through, later consequences be damned. How else can you explain them not bringing a man actual alleged witness into the hearings?
And, realize that the last time we had an analogous situation, the FBI was ordered by a pub president to re-open Thomas’s background investigation. Why shouldn’t the same thing happen here?
Hope that helps Van. I’m sorry your news sources aren’t giving you the truth, and that you’re hopelessly partisan (and chauvinistic too, apparently).
Again, please go educate yourself on sexual assault. You’d be doing everyone around you a favor.
Again, why aren’t the pubs trying to get to the truth? There’s a much better way than the side show that will apparently happen on Thursday.
Side note: we already know about two accusers, and another person that claims that K and Judge (his buddy in the room w/ Dr. Ford) were involved in some debauchery involving women plied with drugs & alcohol.
How many more will emerge, now that there are some brave women coming forward?
I’d bet there will be more women that come forward- for every one that speaks out, there’s likely a few others that want to tell their stories. But, they are afraid of facing attitudes like yours. And their life being permanently altered- even though what happened to them was very real.
I can only hope that one day you look back at this and realize how wrong you are about your position. It’s degrading- and is the reason why pubs are going to lose women for a while moving forward.
Not talking about the political middle but rather the everyday life middle. The 80% middle agree that we want roads, bridges, police, military, and especially jobs. Hell, police even like the idea of having every bullet identified with some sort of unique code, but no, the NRA has to have a hissy fit about anything and everything. The middle agrees on background checks, and so on. The everyday life issue is not the problem. The problem is the ideological right 10% turning it into a divisive issue because how else can they attract non-1%ers to their Party of the Rich and the ideological left 10% tango with the gun issue rather than forging a consensus with law enforcement and others on sensible gun laws. (For example.)
It's not oral testimony yet that I know of, because it hasn't occurred in a sworn proceeding (at least I don't think so), so for the moment you might be right about that. But I don't know whether she has also submitted a written (i.e. non-oral) sworn statement/ affidavit somewhere or submitted to an interview with staffers of the juduciary committee that would also be treated as actual courtroom testimony. Witnesses sometimes do that too.
But don't get your Fox News Sean Ridiculous Hannity hopes up too high, because it sounds like she is ready to testify consistently with the unsworn statements we've already heard about.
Hope these observations don't cause you too much additional stress. Ford is virtually certain to embarrass any and all Republicans anywhere in America in a couple days. Stay tuned.
Have you ever picketed or monitored an actual murder trial (i.e. store robbery, drug deal gone bad etc.)?
Last edited:
Oh, I'm sure of that. Just like any pastor would...just pass it off and wash his hands.
Interestingly, Justice Kavanaugh might have benefited from considering this post as he was contemplating his response to the accusations made against him. IMHO, your thoughtful and considerate posts generally provide more avenues for cross-aisle accords than most of the centristy-centrist calculations that Rock so abhors.
I don't like to admit it, but I did stand out front of my favorite liquor, waiting for it to open. Just because I started the line at 2Am isn't always a Pickett (is it?)
Murder Trial, yes. ** I monitored OJ. Who didn't?
*Edit to add clarity from Monitored vrs picketed.
Last edited:
You can always tell when VPM has been watching FNC. He speaks in talking points.
"Statements aren't evidence", but statements are all Brett Kavanaugh has. And for some reason the GOP members of the JC are afraid to have possible witnesses questioned by the FBI under oath. Apparently (to the surprise of absolutely noone) you are fine with that...
Speaking of statements, Mark Judge has made public claims that the "frat boy mentality" at Georgetown Prep was being exaggerated and was all quite innocent. But when a former girlfriend of his (Elizabeth Rasor) read those claims, SHE called the reporters at the New Yorker on her own. She told them that she wanted to set the record straight, and related that Judge had bragged to her about being part of a group of guys who got girls drunk and pulled trains while he was at Georgetown Prep.
That bit of info was in the New Yorker story on Ramirez, but I'm not sure if that is the same woman Avenatti is representing as well. But I love the way you (and idiot Pubs in the Senate) try to claim it's all being orchestrated by the "evil Dems".In the case of Ramirez who lives in Colorado the reporters from the New Yorker were contacted by someone who pointed them in her direction. And when Judge's former girlfriend read his comments she took it on her own to contact the reporters at the New Yorker, after word got back to her they were working on the Ramirez story...
I love how you discount the various claims from different sources, and damn the "low down tactics" of the Dems. But you're so lacking in self awareness that you fail to realize that the main DEFENDER of Kavanaugh (and the man who nominated him in the first place) is a self confessed (on tape) sex assaulter who has himself been accused by 20+ women of various degrees of assault.Nothing like having Trump in your corner defending your virtue- just ask Roy Moore...
0
what about the time we forbade our 15 yr old daughter, who wasn't on birth control yet, from going out with that older guy she was crazy about?
or the time we were just too tired to have sex with our wife that night?
or all the times we did have sex, but used protection?
we never hear all the lamenting of what could have been in those situations. all the potential lives snuffed out before the fact, lives that could have been teachers and nurses and firemen and someone's love of their life, and someone else's mother or father.
fact is, just having the ability to procreate, in of itself, presents a lifelong impossible dilemma between what we see as best for our life, or our 15 yr old daughter's life, and what's best for potential life not yet realized.
some want to attach a hard dividing line as to at what point we are denying a life as to preventing one, but is that really fair to the life merely prevented, who's life could have been just as full and just as deserved.
like i said, it's literally an impossible dilemma all those with the ability to procreate carry throughout life.
but how great would life really be if we all had 25 or 30 kids. (and is a 31st potential life any less deserving than the 1st)?
no answers here.
just pointing out that the whole debate isn't anywhere near as cut and dry as many try to make it.
the fact that our creator came up with the greatest idea ever to induce us into procreating, want to or not, doesn't exactly help make said dilemma any less difficult to deal with, let alone even grasp in full.
what about the time we forbade our 15 yr old daughter, who wasn't on birth control yet, from going out with that older guy she was crazy about?
or the time we were just too tired to have sex with our wife that night?
or all the times we did have sex, but used protection?
we never hear all the lamenting of what could have been in those situations. all the potential lives snuffed out before the fact, lives that could have been teachers and nurses and firemen and someone's love of their life, and someone else's mother or father.
fact is, just having the ability to procreate, in of itself, presents a lifelong impossible dilemma between what we see as best for our life, or our 15 yr old daughter's life, and what's best for potential life not yet realized.
some want to attach a hard dividing line as to at what point we are denying a life as to preventing one, but is that really fair to the life merely prevented, who's life could have been just as full and just as deserved.
like i said, it's literally an impossible dilemma all those with the ability to procreate carry throughout life.
but how great would life really be if we all had 25 or 30 kids. (and is a 31st potential life any less deserving than the 1st)?
no answers here.
just pointing out that the whole debate isn't anywhere near as cut and dry as many try to make it.
the fact that our creator came up with the greatest idea ever to induce us into procreating, want to or not, doesn't exactly help make said dilemma any less difficult to deal with, let alone even grasp in full.
Last edited:
There you go again. Most rapes are unreported. Many women do not and will not file a police report. And there are many, many valid reasons why.
That is still one of the most illogical ideas I’ve read on the WC. It makes no logical sense at all.
the middle also wants lower taxes, so there's the rub.
and background checks, while sounding good, are lipstick on a pig. thus while possibly making both sides feel good, they won't credibly address the real threat.
it's just kicking the can to the middle of the road.
that said, you want to define the middle as a group that isn't the far left or right, thus agrees on most things not far left or right.
the middle can disagree with the best of them, and sometimes the far left or far right can have very valid points.
the middle isn't more valid than the fringes on everything, just because they are the middle.
and where the middle is gets moved a lot, thus redefining the fringes as well.
the problem is approaching anything as far left or far right or in the middle, to begin with.
forget where something lies on the ever moving political left-right index, and just address everything on it's own merits, not it's position on the index.
like i said, most divisive issues are divisive because both sides hold very credible positions as to what's best for their ox.
thus most divisive issues have no best or even good single solution, if that solution doesn't address what's best for each side's ox.
we keep looking for a solution to multi sided problems, when we should be looking at multi faceted solutions, regardless of where each facet might be defined on the index, that address all side's needs.
Ok i'll bite. He asked if I picketed or monitored any blah blah blah. I made a joke about standing in front of a liquor store but didn't consider it a picket. Then said I dd Monitor the OJ murder trial.
Its better if I don' have to draw pictures for my jokes.
Thanks hoos . . .
. . . I don't know what else to say, other than I am trying to be thoughtful and considerate, and all to often I fail quite miserably in my attempts . . . don't ever drive near me in Atlanta traffic, as I am fluent in Traffic Sign Language and quick to use it too.
No, Avenatt is representing a different woman, who he says is both a witness and a victim.
