Terry Bressi is at it again — challenging constitution-free border checkpoints after being stopped over 400 times.
In case you were tempted to start trusting F*c*b**k with your privacy (hahaha), here’s their latest abusive sleaze — using security info to target ads at people.
Bear Bussjaeger asks the question no one dares answer on “gun control”: How?
At first I wasn’t going to cover this news because it involves pet-store puppies and we already know pet-store puppies are bad juju. But Pat points out that the connection between these dogs and human illness is likely to result in further government crackdowns on veterinary medicines.
She was a professor of English lit and Women’s Studies. Today she homeschools her children because “ideas have shape, form, and significance.”
Believe them both? No she doesn’t. It was just a creative way of saying the judge is guilty and so callous that he doesn’t remember. In essence the woman is saying that an ‘evidence free’ accusation can stand because the accused is still guilty by virtue of ‘selective memory failure.
By this kind of ‘logic’ there is NO way to disprove an accusation without solid evidentiary proof you were elsewhere – like in the Navy deployed at sea in a sub at the time. It is still a No Due Process lynching job. Clever, but nothing even approaching justice.
My own take on Ford/Kavanaugh (longish read). I think something happened to her. I don’t think it was Kavanaugh.
Steve WattSeptember 28, 2018 7:22 am
either one, they interrupted my Jeopardy for that farce. If they thought it credible they should investigate fully. If they don’t get on with the process. Having this “shesaid/hesaid” thing was stupid.
MarieSeptember 28, 2018 7:40 am
I loved the comment left under the puppies story. Symptoms like diarrhea, etc, are the same as when “listening to Diane Feinstein.”
No matter your particular bias, the politicians yesterday acted far worse than my behavior disturbed kids in school. At least they didn’t throw crap around like fallout.
The background of the Wal-Mart story is that the store was open and had what she needed because Wal-Mart has a disaster emergency operations program second to none. The manager knew the corporation already had truckloads of supplies on the way to restock him, particularly items most needed for disaster cleanup and recovery.
FEMA should intern there.
DistOneSeptember 28, 2018 12:09 pm
“My own take on Ford/Kavanaugh (longish read). I think something happened to her. I don’t think it was Kavanaugh.”
I agree with Bear, except she may not be consciously lying about anything. A 35 year-old memory can be corrupted in a million ways – a contemporaneous calendar (evidently squirreled away by his mother?) not so much. He probably wasn’t even in town that week.
Plus, Brett Kavanaugh has been a lawyer all his adult life, and a federal judge much of it. He has to know that the primary way people get into trouble in his court is perjury. The Feds couldn’t prove that Martha Stewart actually knew too much about her investments, so they hung her with a felony for inconsistencies between sworn interrogation sessions, and that’s a common tactic.
Kavanaugh categorically and repeatedly denied, under oath to Congress, that he ever attacked Dr. Ford, or any other woman. He has to know that any shred of proof linking him to any such attack puts him in prison and kills his career.
He’s seen lots of people who were stupid or egotistical enough to figure they could get away with lying, or so innocent they weren’t careful enough with the truth. He isn’t any of those.
He probably wasn’t even in town that week.
And that’s one of the problems with refuting her testimony. No one knows which week he has to have an alibi for.
DistOne: She was lying about recent events, not just the alleged 30some year-old memory of Kavanaugh.
Comrade XSeptember 28, 2018 1:48 pm
The missed connection story was great.
How many of us have been touched by someone we never knew but that touch have lasted all of our lives?
With me it isn’t something to be thought a lot about nor a completely life changing moment either but more of a recognition of what life really is. Moments that just past us by and keep moving as we move on too.
Not that the Kavanaugh circus is yet over or anything–after all, there are crusaders at work, here–but what I find most interesting about the step-back-from-it-all look at things, is the delicious irony of the “woke” crowd being hoist on its own petard, quite possibly deliberately, just about twenty years after setting the bar.
I was talking with a liberal friend of mine a couple of years ago, (I think there were some Me Too accusations and people losing their careers…I don’t remember clearly) and I mentioned that I cannot automatically accept a woman’s tearful story as the truth without some additional evidence, or unless the man confesses. She then said, “what if I told you I was taken advantage of when I was a teen?” She then went on to tell the story of using a store’s dressing room at about 15 years old, and while being nearly naked ogled by the man who owned the store. Should he have gotten away with it?
Talk about an uncomfortable conversation. If I believed her I had to condemn the store owner (and by extension condemn the men being accused by Me Too), but if I didn’t condemn the men being accused by Me Too, I was taking the store owner’s side and calling her a liar.
It took a moment to gather my thoughts. I said: I believe you, but I cannot condemn the store owner based on my own belief without corroborating evidence because I can’t defend my position except by saying I know you. It’s a fact, I said, that a portion of sexual assault allegations are simply false, and women cannot automatically be believed because it is known some women can convincingly fabricate stories. I expected a full fledged fight at that point. Thankfully she changed the subject. I don’t know if she accepted my argument or decided I was too much of a jerk to continue that conversation.
It must suck to be a real victim and not be able to get anyone to believe you because there was no other evidence. It must suck because an assaulted woman has to overcome the doubt that lying women have planted in everyone’s minds.
AntibubbaSeptember 29, 2018 7:24 am
The article was interesting, but I think the reason is much more simple: he was blind stinking drunk (as he and pretty much all the boys and girls in his class seemed to be) and has no memory of the event.
And yeah, I believe her. I’ve known far too many rape and assault victims to think she’s faking or lying, or that it was somebody else. And she wrote that letter months ago, when he was only a potential pick. You’d think anyone who owns a television would know how duplicitous politicians are, and that her hope for anonymity was naive.
Can we nominate Ron Paul now?
JamesSeptember 29, 2018 8:15 am
“It took a moment to gather my thoughts. I said: I believe you, but I cannot condemn the store owner based on my own belief without corroborating evidence because I can’t defend my position except by saying I know you.”
Interesting and thoughtful comment by Mr. Johnson. And I agree: if you know the woman and know her to be truthful, you’d be convinced that what she said was true … but, as a juror in a court of law, in the absence of any other, independent, beyond-reasonable-doubt-type evidence, you’d have to acquit. Because the Bible (“by the testimony of two or three witnesses let all things be established”), the Romans (“one witness is no witness”), and the fundamental idea on which the presumption of innocence rests (“better that nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished”). The lady may not agree, but I think that’s how it has to be, lest worse things result.
Believe them both? No she doesn’t. It was just a creative way of saying the judge is guilty and so callous that he doesn’t remember. In essence the woman is saying that an ‘evidence free’ accusation can stand because the accused is still guilty by virtue of ‘selective memory failure.
By this kind of ‘logic’ there is NO way to disprove an accusation without solid evidentiary proof you were elsewhere – like in the Navy deployed at sea in a sub at the time. It is still a No Due Process lynching job. Clever, but nothing even approaching justice.
My own take on Ford/Kavanaugh (longish read). I think something happened to her. I don’t think it was Kavanaugh.
either one, they interrupted my Jeopardy for that farce. If they thought it credible they should investigate fully. If they don’t get on with the process. Having this “shesaid/hesaid” thing was stupid.
I loved the comment left under the puppies story. Symptoms like diarrhea, etc, are the same as when “listening to Diane Feinstein.”
No matter your particular bias, the politicians yesterday acted far worse than my behavior disturbed kids in school. At least they didn’t throw crap around like fallout.
The background of the Wal-Mart story is that the store was open and had what she needed because Wal-Mart has a disaster emergency operations program second to none. The manager knew the corporation already had truckloads of supplies on the way to restock him, particularly items most needed for disaster cleanup and recovery.
FEMA should intern there.
“My own take on Ford/Kavanaugh (longish read). I think something happened to her. I don’t think it was Kavanaugh.”
I agree with Bear, except she may not be consciously lying about anything. A 35 year-old memory can be corrupted in a million ways – a contemporaneous calendar (evidently squirreled away by his mother?) not so much. He probably wasn’t even in town that week.
Plus, Brett Kavanaugh has been a lawyer all his adult life, and a federal judge much of it. He has to know that the primary way people get into trouble in his court is perjury. The Feds couldn’t prove that Martha Stewart actually knew too much about her investments, so they hung her with a felony for inconsistencies between sworn interrogation sessions, and that’s a common tactic.
Kavanaugh categorically and repeatedly denied, under oath to Congress, that he ever attacked Dr. Ford, or any other woman. He has to know that any shred of proof linking him to any such attack puts him in prison and kills his career.
He’s seen lots of people who were stupid or egotistical enough to figure they could get away with lying, or so innocent they weren’t careful enough with the truth. He isn’t any of those.
He probably wasn’t even in town that week.
And that’s one of the problems with refuting her testimony. No one knows which week he has to have an alibi for.
DistOne: She was lying about recent events, not just the alleged 30some year-old memory of Kavanaugh.
The missed connection story was great.
How many of us have been touched by someone we never knew but that touch have lasted all of our lives?
With me it isn’t something to be thought a lot about nor a completely life changing moment either but more of a recognition of what life really is. Moments that just past us by and keep moving as we move on too.
[…] we have Friday Links from Claire Wolfe. She begins with the following […]
Not that the Kavanaugh circus is yet over or anything–after all, there are crusaders at work, here–but what I find most interesting about the step-back-from-it-all look at things, is the delicious irony of the “woke” crowd being hoist on its own petard, quite possibly deliberately, just about twenty years after setting the bar.
It’s like all this has been done before.
I was talking with a liberal friend of mine a couple of years ago, (I think there were some Me Too accusations and people losing their careers…I don’t remember clearly) and I mentioned that I cannot automatically accept a woman’s tearful story as the truth without some additional evidence, or unless the man confesses. She then said, “what if I told you I was taken advantage of when I was a teen?” She then went on to tell the story of using a store’s dressing room at about 15 years old, and while being nearly naked ogled by the man who owned the store. Should he have gotten away with it?
Talk about an uncomfortable conversation. If I believed her I had to condemn the store owner (and by extension condemn the men being accused by Me Too), but if I didn’t condemn the men being accused by Me Too, I was taking the store owner’s side and calling her a liar.
It took a moment to gather my thoughts. I said: I believe you, but I cannot condemn the store owner based on my own belief without corroborating evidence because I can’t defend my position except by saying I know you. It’s a fact, I said, that a portion of sexual assault allegations are simply false, and women cannot automatically be believed because it is known some women can convincingly fabricate stories. I expected a full fledged fight at that point. Thankfully she changed the subject. I don’t know if she accepted my argument or decided I was too much of a jerk to continue that conversation.
It must suck to be a real victim and not be able to get anyone to believe you because there was no other evidence. It must suck because an assaulted woman has to overcome the doubt that lying women have planted in everyone’s minds.
The article was interesting, but I think the reason is much more simple: he was blind stinking drunk (as he and pretty much all the boys and girls in his class seemed to be) and has no memory of the event.
And yeah, I believe her. I’ve known far too many rape and assault victims to think she’s faking or lying, or that it was somebody else. And she wrote that letter months ago, when he was only a potential pick. You’d think anyone who owns a television would know how duplicitous politicians are, and that her hope for anonymity was naive.
Can we nominate Ron Paul now?
“It took a moment to gather my thoughts. I said: I believe you, but I cannot condemn the store owner based on my own belief without corroborating evidence because I can’t defend my position except by saying I know you.”
Interesting and thoughtful comment by Mr. Johnson. And I agree: if you know the woman and know her to be truthful, you’d be convinced that what she said was true … but, as a juror in a court of law, in the absence of any other, independent, beyond-reasonable-doubt-type evidence, you’d have to acquit. Because the Bible (“by the testimony of two or three witnesses let all things be established”), the Romans (“one witness is no witness”), and the fundamental idea on which the presumption of innocence rests (“better that nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished”). The lady may not agree, but I think that’s how it has to be, lest worse things result.