I never deny video evidence. I sometimes point out that it isn't clear. I sometimes accuse others of reading too much into video evidence. But I don't deny video evidence.
Please try to keep things accurate, if the only point you can make involves insults and inaccuracies.

Top Gun. Good movie. I might add that Iceman was... wrong when he said bullshit. Wasn't he. ^^

/e Another highly detailed point about Kavanaugh I see. :/

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 17 2018 07:56am

I think its best looked at through the lens of what the implications would be if we did say this allegation on its own was enough
A lot of focus has been on the denial, and rebutting the accusation and character witnesses. But lets say for sake of argument that thanks to #MeToo, somehow this accusation is enough to tear down the man's career
well what would that mean?

If all it took is a single accusation from one woman without any corroborating evidence, little to no specifics, no date, no place, no details, the only 2 people named denying it ever happened, a considerable background of both personal and political bias against the man she's accusing, the obviously arranged timing, no other accusations to establish a pattern of misconduct, a 35 year delay from which no story could be credibly retold with clarity, discrepancies within her own account that only goes back to 2012, her own admission of intoxication being a factor for both parties, the not particularly serious actions of a minor- if we can have all those factors to doubt and/or mitigate the accusation and nothing to support it, and that still somehow is enough, then what protections do we have against false accusations?

I could go out and say I saw Goody Feinstein with the devil, would they burn her at the stake on nothing more than my say-so?

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 17 2018 07:56am

Agreed. We are allowing a dangerous precedent here, when we give any credibility to last minute claims of ... anything.
I grew up in the days when no one said anything before having proof. In fact, doing so was very dangerous tactic. It seems that somehow, we've started to actually give due consideration to accounts with zero proof.

I know I've said it before, but I'm glad I'm getting old. We are changing into a society I want nothing to do with.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 17 2018 08:04am

You grew up in the day where women and boys and girls were shamed into silence for their entire lives over sexual abuse and mistreatment

called liars and sluts and treated like garbage if they came forward so they took that pain every day which lead them into addictions and suicides and repeating history

perfect summary of the long-term implications if this madness proves successful.

And how would you know that. When all you have to go by is histories written by folks who believed that?

Like I said... when anyone accused anyone of anything, the first response was "where's the proof". Now-a-days the first response is, yes, I am a sheeple I believe anything someone with an ulterior motive, says.

You gonna get back to the Kavanaugh issue, or do you feel the need to attempt to belittle me some more.


/e



Yep, yep. As I mentioned after reading Gooms post... we are setting a dangerous precedent here.

This post was edited by Ghot on Sep 17 2018 08:14am

throw them all in the potomac river as the litmus test from now on. if they sink they are innocent if they float they’re guilty

Fixed.