dcutman

22 minutes ago, keith101 said:

Republicans aren't going to do well at the midterms but will blame anyone else just like the loser he is .

Just the two points for the Trump hater.

Who is President of the United States and who was a 98% shoe in to be the President? So who is the looser here? And are you sure you want to go there again?

10 minutes ago, Credo said:

You seem to think this is just about Democrat/Republican.   It's not.   It's about conservation.   Because they may be not be considered as endangered or in need of protection does not mean they should be hunted.   

 

Everything on Thai Visa is about Trump hate. This is an appointed Obama judge, if Obama was still president or Hillary didnt screw things up so badly,  Grizzly Bear season would be open, and we would not be having this conversation.

20 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Failing to apply the best science and illogical. 

 

Yep, that sounds like a typical decision from the current administration. 

 

If big game hunters want to hunt something, let the scum hunt each other.  

Of course you missed the little part, about how your hero's administration proposed the same thing.

The Trump administration's decision in June of last year to "de-list" the grizzly, formally proposed in 2016 during the Obama era, was based on agency findings that the bears' numbers had rebounded enough in recent decades that federal safeguards were no longer necessary.

35 minutes ago, stevenl said:

She was presented with every option?

 

Please stop, you're making a fool of yourself.

What option was she not afforded to testify?

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because her name, address and personal details have already been leaked to the public.

 

A question for you.

 

Why is Dr Ford giving her evidence to and being question by The Senate openly before the public a bad thing?

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because her name, address and personal details have already been leaked to the public.

 

A question for you.

 

Why is Dr Ford giving her evidence to and being question by The Senate openly before the public a bad thing?

Its not a bad thing, it is suspicious that somebody that was supposedly seeking anonymity, and was proposed a multitude of more private options, would choose the most public option. We will have to get back to if there is any evidence, at this point it is only very vague aspects of her accounts and the accused and two witnesses claiming they do not recall even knowing her or being at such a party as she described.

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

6 minutes ago, dcutman said:

However you would like to look at it.

 

Washington (CNN)Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford said in a statement on Sunday that she has committed to testifying in an open hearing on Thursday about her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/christine-blasey-ford-senate/index.html

Again, nonsense. She did all she could to avoid this circus.

Oh really? How is that?

She was presented with every option to testify, most of witch were in private settings by anyone she felt most comfortable with. But yet she chose the public television circus option, by what is being describe buy the liberal media as be questioned by "angry white men".

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

She didn't want to go public, nor did she request this hearing.

 

Please stop writing nonsense.

However you would like to look at it.

Washington (CNN)Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford said in a statement on Sunday that she has committed to testifying in an open hearing on Thursday about her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/christine-blasey-ford-senate/index.html

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

There is absolutely no evidence that Dr Ford has sought personal publicity in this matter

Then why is she going to testify publicly, on television, on Thursday? She was given many options to testify, but she chose the most public way to do it. 

12 minutes ago, simple1 said:

No wonder sexual assault victims are loath to go public with the volume of unsupported accusations leveled for political purposes prior to hearings

She does not seem to have any problem going public, she requested a televised hearing, in fact it is one of the biggest public circus's in American history, with with less than unsupported accusations. Of the other 4 people she said that was in that house, 3 of them say they cant recall  her,  or the party she is claiming. No one seems to know who the fourth person is.

Who is the victim in this case?

Just now, Credo said:

No, what is amazing is how you and others will cast aspersions on anyone.   Kavenaugh is the accused predator.   She is the victim.   

 

 

Most likely, that is exactly what she would like everybody to believe. And all Trump haters do. Its conceivable she is the predator and the Kavenaugh  is actually the victim. Her details very vague and her timing perfect. Cant wait to see what she has to say in this public circus she has requested. There will be more people watching this senate hearing than the super bowl.

Supposedly the women wanted total anonymity at one time. Supposedly one of the two democrat senators that received her letter, leaked it to the Washington Post. The letter was marked confidential and she reiterated in the letter for it to remain confidential.

The strange thing is she could have testified to the senate in a number of ways, particularly in private, but she chose to have a televised public event. It would be my guess she was the one than contacted the Washington Post because her story was not getting out to the public.

It is amazing what people will do to get famous.

13 hours ago, Spidey said:

a.k.a. Patriots.

Your opinion. For the 60+ million Americans that voted for him treasonous would be more used term for this scum.

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

Google employees discussed how they could tweak the company's search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations.

The Google employees proposed ways to "leverage" search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be "islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'Iran', etc." and "prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms 'Mexico', 'Hispanic', 'Latino', etc," the Journal added, quoting from the emails.

Now how could that be a problem? As long as Google is against Trump, This should not be an issue, and should not be in the news. People should boycott WSJ for running this story.

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

If you do what Trump wants which is to only buy goods made in the USA

How typical of you Trump haters, you sound like some lying left wing talking head on CNN.

Trump has clearly expressed he wants trade with everybody, but he wants fair and equal trade. Witch naturally will bring manufacturing back to the US witch he and the majority of Americans want.

14 hours ago, sweatalot said:

17 hours ago, webfact said:

North Korea has agreed to "permanently" abolish its key missile facilities in the presence of foreign experts, and is willing to close its main nuclear complex if the United States takes reciprocal action

how ridiculous is that?

 I would think if NK did what they say, they would expect something in return. What part is ridiculous to you?

51 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

There is another potential witness that claims the assault was known about at the time.

How exactly are the Republicans trying to bury this? Fords second witness has pretty much the same thing the first one had to say.

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in the statement. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

Smyth also provided his unequivocal endorsement of Kavanaugh: "Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have." 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36053/another-potential-witness-named-kavanaugh-accuser-james-barrett