WizardofOz
New member
If your daughter told you she was sexually assaulted would you believe her or would you tell her to come back when she has proof?
Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
If your daughter told you she was sexually assaulted would you believe her or would you tell her to come back when she has proof?
Typical ignorant question: Believing her, and immediately having someone thrown in prison based on her word alone are two different things
Believing something happened is not the same as condemning a man without any evidence.
WizardofOz
New member
Who even suggested this?
:listen: I don't think CatholicCrusader knows how to read
I know he ejaculated on Monica Lewinsky because she had the dress.
I know that doesn't answer the question.
With laughter, I'd imagine. And with an accuser walking away in a huff.
That's not a parallel to the hearing. In your hypothetical we don't have a neutral third party. We have people with allegiances and obligations being asked to consider something that would interrupt those. We have vested interests in conflict.
Here's a closer parallel. I'm a judge. Two people come into my court with a disagreement. The first person claims that the second person worked a harm against them. The second person denies the claim, says the first person is mistaken. I'd ask the first person what proof they have to sustain the charge. If I found the proof compelling I'd ask for the other person to provide any information that might mitigate the impression. If not I'd dismiss the claim from the outset.
I wouldn't presume either party was telling the truth. There's no reason for me to and every reason for me to remain an impartial third party with a singular interest in the truth.
WizardofOz
New member
At least there was no question of consent
Apparently you don't know how to speak English and understand the underlying implications of your own goofy questions.
You asked, "If your daughter told you she was sexually assaulted would you believe her or would you tell her to come back when she has proof?"
The simple answer is "Yes", but I know that's not what you were implying. You were implying that if we say "Yes" then Kavanaugh should have been assumed guilty and not confirmed.
I know what your tiny pea brain is thinking better than you do.
WizardofOz
New member
Do you understand the difference between a confirmation hearing and a criminal trial? Cause, you seem clueless thus far
Your point and the point of your fellow Nazis is that its okay to totally destroy a man's life because its not in a court of law and therefore no rules apply. One woman makes one 30 year old claim without a shred of proof, and thats all she wrote.
Just because you losers can't win at the ballot box does not mean you're going to win with your brown shirt storm trooper tactics.
By the way, did you forget that her own friend denied her accusation? woops.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not if you can read and reason, so I can see at least half your struggle on the point.
That would have been a great lead in for your one word, "gobbledygook" response to a thorough answer on a point you weren't prepared to reason through earlier. :thumb:
Now give me a word that rhymes with orange.
:sigh: Oh, CC...that wasn't even close (either).
WizardofOz
New member
:blabla:
How would Kavanaugh's life be "totally destroyed" if his accusers were believed?
Do explain
His feelings would take a massive hit...it might forever link the bitter taste of defeat to his beloved beer. Beer, man. Have you no soul?
Don't hold your breath. Also, Ford's friend didn't deny her accusation regarding Kavanaugh, if CC means the friend named as being at the party. That friend actually said she didn't remember the party. Trying to fashion that into a denial was a lie Kavanaugh tried more than once. Her friend, Leland Kyser, has to the contrary declared that she believes Ford.
Then there was Monica McLean, who a disgruntled ex of Ford said was coached on how to take a polygraph when the two were roomates. McLean has refuted the effort.
Don't expect CC to read long enough to glean any of that as he prepares his next "Hitler" launch.
Well , Kavanaugh was confirmed anyway . Due process? This has to do with accusations of criminal conduct . He was not undergoing a criminal trial . This was a job interview, and most liberals
gave him the benefit of the doubt, anyway .
He may or may not have tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford while drunk as a skunk when they were both teenagers . We don't know is his accuser is lying and he notion that the Democrats somehow chose some woman out of the blue in order to "ruin his life " is preposterous .
I'm no fan of Kavanaugh but I would not have condoned false accusations against him or anyone .
His life if far from having been "ruined ". He will be the next Supreme Court justice , and even if he had not been confirmed , he would still have a prestigious and powerful position on the next lowest court in the land .
But frankly , I am appalled to see someone like this as a member of SCOTUS . For all his impressive credentials he still basically a partisan hack Republican judge who is beholden to the big corporations and their interests , not the interests of individual Americans .And there are many more reasons to have misgivings about him and to be doubtful about his ability to make unbiased, impartial decisions .
gave him the benefit of the doubt, anyway .
He may or may not have tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford while drunk as a skunk when they were both teenagers . We don't know is his accuser is lying and he notion that the Democrats somehow chose some woman out of the blue in order to "ruin his life " is preposterous .
I'm no fan of Kavanaugh but I would not have condoned false accusations against him or anyone .
His life if far from having been "ruined ". He will be the next Supreme Court justice , and even if he had not been confirmed , he would still have a prestigious and powerful position on the next lowest court in the land .
But frankly , I am appalled to see someone like this as a member of SCOTUS . For all his impressive credentials he still basically a partisan hack Republican judge who is beholden to the big corporations and their interests , not the interests of individual Americans .And there are many more reasons to have misgivings about him and to be doubtful about his ability to make unbiased, impartial decisions .
So with that what do you WizardofOz believe about Juanita Broaddrick?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Because she told someone about it just 30 miniutes after it happened (and not decades later) and her lip was swollen to twice its size because while she was being raped Clinton was biting her lip!
He also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Paul Jones because he exposed himself to her.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Good answer but not good enough for those who scream "guilty by accusation."
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I don't think you would be laughing if your wife was told by her best friend that she was having an affair with you even if it wasn't true. Then what if your wife said that the woman is to believed no matter what.
And then you will say, "Right, we must believe the woman even if she has absolutely no evidence that supports her accusation."
Sure!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Can you even begin to understand what his daughters have gone through and will continue to go through just because the Democrats decided to play dirty and make sure the whole world knew that their father was being accused of sexual misconduct?
Evidently not!
Now it's her best friend and my wife must believe her? It's just a silly exercise in insisting on the conclusion you want and working backwards. My wife's best friend is me. And she wouldn't believe anyone else, but before that she wouldn't be that close to someone who'd lie to her about me. That sort of person has more issues than Mad Magazine.
Whenever you have to concoct an absurd hypothesis to make a point the point is likely flawed.
In any event it's not a parallel. I've presented an actual parallel. You don't want to consider it because it won't take you where you mean to go, but that's not how to reason a thing out, Jerry.
You should stick to trying to make your side work. What I'd say is there is good reason to largely believe women who advance narratives of sexual abuse. They tend to be telling the truth and for a number of reasons we can talk about. And testimony is evidence. It was even the sort people could be stoned over biblically.
Now that's [believing women on sexual assault] as a rule. The problem with rules is that they can break down along the exception. So the thing to do is to hear the case and consider whether or not you find it sufficiently credible as a proposition. I put it that way because we aren't in a court and our opinions won't send anyone to jail.
What's with the yelling?