Jump to content

⚖️ SCOTUS


RETIREDFAN1

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't recall commenting on this story, Danny Zuco. Obsess much? And, just who are your reliable, steadfast sources of information out there that we should all flock to? Keep buying into the fascist idea of destroying the media, so you can put out your own 'truth', as Trump has tried from DAY ONE, following in the footsteps of FOX and Breitbart and Rush and Alex Jones. 

Personally, I have never thought being an overprivileged, alcoholic frat boy who got handsy with women throughout HS and college was enough to keep someone from running from office or being appointed to the Supreme Court. Why, we have a long, fine tradition of jackwagons running the show. It would disqualify most of the coaching profession from working, for that matter! 

You haven't commented on this story, because you KNOW they are liars and wrong. But you are in lock step with the MSM narrative. You can try and sit there and act "high and mighty", but you are nothing more than a hate monger like the rest of the MSM. I know there are NO factual information news outlets out there these days. Which means that an intelligent person would have to listen to multiple outlets, read multiple stories, and then research the truth. But people don't have time for that--so they listen to the 30 second clips of hate by each side. 

But in this story--the actual writers one day blame the editors on the O'Donnell show, but do NOT correct themselves as they preach the hatred narrative on NPR. Pretty much the liberal mantra--in which you are a liberal. Liberals are like birds of a feather. 

I don't want to destroy the media, I want the media to report the "FACTS", without their political narrative involved. The who, what, where, why, when, and how. https://www.thoughtco.com/journalists-questions-5-ws-and-h-1691205

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Hate monger'? I see you spewing hatred every single day for those 'liberals' and the 'guvmint' and the dumb Democrats and anyone who is contrary to your superior, supposedly well researched OPINIONS. You remind me of an AD I had once who put 'decorative' mirrors at all angles in his office, so he could watch himself talk. 

  • Stinks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't recall commenting on this story, Danny Zuco. Obsess much? And, just who are your reliable, steadfast sources of information out there that we should all flock to? Keep buying into the fascist idea of destroying the media, so you can put out your own 'truth', as Trump has tried from DAY ONE, following in the footsteps of FOX and Breitbart and Rush and Alex Jones. 

Personally, I have never thought being an overprivileged, alcoholic frat boy who got handsy with women throughout HS and college was enough to keep someone from running from office or being appointed to the Supreme Court. Why, we have a long, fine tradition of jackwagons running the show. It would disqualify most of the coaching profession from working, for that matter! 

You continue to repeat unsubstantiated slander of the far left ultra liberal media ...sad ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

You remind me of an AD I had once who put 'decorative' mirrors at all angles in his office, so he could watch himself talk. 

That is a waste of school district dollars, and therefore, he should have been fired. Besides any decent AD knows he can hear himself talk in front of the team for as long as he wants to. Everyday, Every Practice, every team meeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

I don't recall commenting on this story, Danny Zuco. Obsess much? And, just who are your reliable, steadfast sources of information out there that we should all flock to? Keep buying into the fascist idea of destroying the media, so you can put out your own 'truth', as Trump has tried from DAY ONE, following in the footsteps of FOX and Breitbart and Rush and Alex Jones. 

Personally, I have never thought being an overprivileged, alcoholic frat boy who got handsy with women throughout HS and college was enough to keep someone from running from office or being appointed to the Supreme Court. Why, we have a long, fine tradition of jackwagons running the show. It would disqualify most of the coaching profession from working, for that matter! 

fascist idea of destroying the media?

fascism has nothing to do with it.  the media have done it to themselves by becoming mouthpieces and propagandists of the radical left.  

it was very noticeable during the Øbama years, but ever since trump has taken office it is absolutely GLARING and they are totally unashamed of it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheNameIsDalton said:

I think the Times has already back peddled on this BS article.  

They have, but none of the Democratic nominees that shouted for Kavanaugh's impeachment have.  It's also strange that Barry in his diatribe also slandered the Honorable Judge Kavanaugh with assuming that he had actually done what he has been accused of with no evidence to support the accusations.  (His words :  Personally, I have never thought being an overprivileged, alcoholic frat boy who got handsy with women throughout HS and college was enough to keep someone from running from office or being appointed to the Supreme Court.)  He is much like his counterpart Beto O'Rourke with his tweet in assuming guilt :  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monte1076 said:

I was under the assumption that impeachment only applied to actions taken while one was in office.

But if we are at the point where people can lose their jobs based upon uncorroborated and possibly unverifiable and possibly non-credible accusations, we're in trouble.

it also applies for those actively "seeking" office as well.

which is why something that may or may not have happened while in high school or college as impeachment evidence is overwhelmingly stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding would be that it could be justified based on lying under oath. Everyone knows that the FBI didn't do due diligence in investigating claims against Kavanaugh, so pretending otherwise is just not honest. Again, I don't see his 'alleged' actions rising to a level of him not being on the Supreme Court. And, I added that alleged, although I would say that there is a lot of evidence from friends and foes about his background and his behaviors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the supposed "victim" in this latest flap, inconveniently for liberals, doesn't recall the incident in question.  didn't stop liberals from calling for his impeachment.

blasey-ford, and this was said by her lawyer, was compelled to come forward, even though she couldn't remember whether it was kavanaugh or not, in order to stop him getting on the SCOTUS due to him potentially being the 5th vote to overturn roe v wade.

so how can he be lying under oath with his denial if the accusers can't A) recall the event in the first place or B) can't remember if it was kavanaugh or some other dude?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Reason #314 why the Republican party will continue to lose female voters from their party. I am POSITIVE you aren't a stud muffin your own self, Carth. 

Hey, I had my fun back in my younger days, & never had any complaints from the ladies... Just ask your wife......😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

My understanding would be that it could be justified based on lying under oath. Everyone knows that the FBI didn't do due diligence in investigating claims against Kavanaugh, so pretending otherwise is just not honest. Again, I don't see his 'alleged' actions rising to a level of him not being on the Supreme Court. And, I added that alleged, although I would say that there is a lot of evidence from friends and foes about his background and his behaviors. 

When did he lie under oath?  What proof do you have?  The FBI did a thorough investigation ... the libtards just wanted to string it our in a never ending witch hunt based on zero credible evidence .... Again NONE of the alleged evidence panned out as credible .... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

When did he lie under oath?  What proof do you have?  The FBI did a thorough investigation ... the libtards just wanted to string it our in a never ending witch hunt based on zero credible evidence .... Again NONE of the alleged evidence panned out as credible .... 

the libtard media said he lied under oath, so in the libs small minds he must have done it........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

My understanding would be that it could be justified based on lying under oath. Everyone knows that the FBI didn't do due diligence in investigating claims against Kavanaugh, so pretending otherwise is just not honest. Again, I don't see his 'alleged' actions rising to a level of him not being on the Supreme Court. And, I added that alleged, although I would say that there is a lot of evidence from friends and foes about his background and his behaviors. 

It was allegedly over this case, and the "victim" doesn't even remember the incident.  So how could they investigate something that others made up other than those that weren't even there.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

My understanding would be that it could be justified based on lying under oath. Everyone knows that the FBI didn't do due diligence in investigating claims against Kavanaugh, so pretending otherwise is just not honest. Again, I don't see his 'alleged' actions rising to a level of him not being on the Supreme Court. And, I added that alleged, although I would say that there is a lot of evidence from friends and foes about his background and his behaviors. 

There are also a lot of people who made accusations where the accusations have questionable veracity. Do you deny that? Like the latest instance where the woman denied ever remembering that event happening. And the NY Times had to print a teeny, tiny retraction, basically saying that they left that very important piece of information out of their article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...