LogFAQs > #909626702

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is nobody watching the Kavanugh stream?
darkknight109 09/28/18 7:04:28 PM #102:	Troll_Police_ posted... find out if he is guilty, and if you can prove it, THEN tear his fucking life down that poor fucker. Minor problem - the people responsible for actually doing the investigation and overseeing the process weren't doing their fucking jobs because it was politically inconvenient due to a looming election. Republicans were basically using the rather circular logic that "There's no evidence that he's guilty, so he must be innocent, and since he's innocent there's no need for an investigation to find evidence of guilt." If they'd done their fucking jobs and actually vetted the candidate like they were supposed to, we could have avoided this mess. OhhhJa posted... Whatabout This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" GreenKnight127 posted... People watch too many movies. Everyone thinks the FBI is this magical organization with all the latest technology and secret gadgets like the Men in Black or some shit, and they can get to the bottom of a case within hours that would take normal law enforcement years. Couldn't be further from the truth. The investigation into Anita Hill's similar accusations against Clarence Thomas took three days. GreenKnight127 posted... The FBI doesn't come to conclusions. They just collect data. And they've already got that data No, they don't have that data. They don't have sworn testimony from Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick, or Mark Judge, or his ex-girlfriend that says Judge once confessed to her to having participated in group sex with a drunk girl in high school (which sounds very similar to the allegations Swetnick made). They haven't investigated any of the allegations (and the judicial committee didn't even bother to call them up to submit testimony the way they asked Ford to). There are still a lot of questions. A more complete picture with more complete information can only be beneficial to the innocent party (whoever that is). GreenKnight127 posted... The democrats are just dragging it out because they want that fucking seat so bad. If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on over this, I hear Merrick Garland isn't doing much these days. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:909626702] in Is nobody ... [t:77045787]...</cite> <quote><cite>Troll_Police_ posted...</cite> <quote>find out if he is guilty, and if you can prove it, THEN tear his fucking life down that poor fucker.</quote> Minor problem - the people responsible for actually doing the investigation and overseeing the process weren't doing their fucking jobs because it was politically inconvenient due to a looming election. Republicans were basically using the rather circular logic that "There's no evidence that he's guilty, so he must be innocent, and since he's innocent there's no need for an investigation to find evidence of guilt." If they'd done their fucking jobs and actually vetted the candidate like they were supposed to, we could have avoided this mess. <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Whatabout</quote> This is not whataboutism, because it's all related to the same line of logic. Whataboutism is when you call up a completely different issue to try and derail the conversation. "Donald Trump has been accused of molesting goats on six different occasions? Well, what about the time when Obama wore a tan suit? Shouldn't that get scorn too?" <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>People watch too many movies. Everyone thinks the FBI is this magical organization with all the latest technology and secret gadgets like the Men in Black or some shit, and they can get to the bottom of a case within hours that would take normal law enforcement years. Couldn't be further from the truth. </quote> The investigation into Anita Hill's similar accusations against Clarence Thomas took three days. <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>The FBI doesn't come to conclusions. They just collect data. And they've already got that data</quote> No, they don't have that data. They don't have sworn testimony from Deborah Ramirez, or Julie Swetnick, or Mark Judge, or his ex-girlfriend that says Judge once confessed to her to having participated in group sex with a drunk girl in high school (which sounds very similar to the allegations Swetnick made). They haven't investigated any of the allegations (and the judicial committee didn't even bother to call them up to submit testimony the way they asked Ford to). There are still a lot of questions. A more complete picture with more complete information can only be beneficial to the innocent party (whoever that is). <cite>GreenKnight127 posted...</cite> <quote>The democrats are just dragging it out because they want that fucking seat so bad.</quote> If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on over this, I hear Merrick Garland isn't doing much these days. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1