Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest kavanaugh smear is a revolting piece of partisan trash.
Wtf NYT.
Seriously, WTF?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/09/17/nolte-new-york-times-news-division-didnt-want-to-own-kavanaugh-smears/

Ew. Your link reads like the rantings of a paranoid madman. Just ew.

Try WSJ. Sane, comprehensive, and scathing.

“The attacks on Justice Kavanaugh are an attempt at intimidation to influence his opinions. But if Democrats fail in that, they want to portray conservative opinions of the current Court as illegitimate. Even Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota now says the Judiciary confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was “a sham.” She knows better but so much for her self-styling as a “moderate.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The latest kavanaugh smear is a revolting piece of partisan trash.
Wtf NYT.
Seriously, WTF?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/09/17/nolte-new-york-times-news-division-didnt-want-to-own-kavanaugh-smears/

Ew. Your link reads like the rantings of a paranoid madman. Just ew.

Don't open Breitbert links. You risk gonorrhea or stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

+1
PP keeps self owning.

Which pp? Kavanaugh's Becky or me, the Handmaid's Tale alluder?

The Becky. Your allusions are funny and sad and on point.

Phew thank you - I hated to be a Pearl Girl all by myself. Pearl Girls go in pairs.

(I have just finished reading the HMT sequel and am still lost in that world.)

Yes, it is evident you’re lost in an entirely fictitious world. No explanation needed.

Anonymous wrote:The latest kavanaugh smear is a revolting piece of partisan trash.
Wtf NYT.
Seriously, WTF?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/09/17/nolte-new-york-times-news-division-didnt-want-to-own-kavanaugh-smears/

Ew. Your link reads like the rantings of a paranoid madman. Just ew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

+1
PP keeps self owning.

Which pp? Kavanaugh's Becky or me, the Handmaid's Tale alluder?

The Becky. Your allusions are funny and sad and on point.

Phew thank you - I hated to be a Pearl Girl all by myself. Pearl Girls go in pairs.

(I have just finished reading the HMT sequel and am still lost in that world.)

The latest kavanaugh smear is a revolting piece of partisan trash.
Wtf NYT.
Seriously, WTF?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/09/17/nolte-new-york-times-news-division-didnt-want-to-own-kavanaugh-smears/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-architect-of-the-latest-kavanaugh-smear-just-gave-a-self-damning-radio-interview/

Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander?

Moreover, if Stier saw this behavior at a party at which others were present, why is no one else backing him up? After a year of reporting, involving members of her own college class, Pogrebin has failed to locate any others to corroborate what Stier is saying.

Of the woman at the party, she says, “Remember that she was incredibly drunk at that party as was everyone. And so I think we’re talking about memory here as really kind of a questionable issue. There are plenty of things that are conceivable that could happen when people are too drunk to remember them.” So the standard here is not whether something is true, it’s whether it’s “conceivable.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

+1
PP keeps self owning.

Which pp? Kavanaugh's Becky or me, the Handmaid's Tale alluder?

The Becky. Your allusions are funny and sad and on point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

+1
PP keeps self owning.

Which pp? Kavanaugh's Becky or me, the Handmaid's Tale alluder?

And here’s an editorial from the WSJ. Very grateful there is still one news source with journalistic integrity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

+1
PP keeps self owning.

Excellent piece in the WSJ today on the idiocy of these allegations:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/pin-the-asterisk-on-kavanaugh-11568673826

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Running around a party with your pants down is exposing yourself. People get arrested for this.

Kavanaugh apologists are bottom feeders.

Agree. Making up stories like this is worse. Again, there is no corroboration. This all started with the Ramirez story. Even she couldn't be sure it was Kavanaugh until after she spent six days talking to her lawyer. No one else could corroborate it. The only people who said it happened were not there when it happened. Kind of weak accusation.

[i]Does it not bother you that false accusations could take you down?

[b]

No, it bothers me that there was not a real investigation with an expansive scope so a bare majority of an institution that represents a minority of the country could push someone onto the Court for a lifetime appointment. To say nothing of his sniveling, pathetic, partisan rant, shady finances, and apparent perjury, which are all reasons to not confirm him INDEPENDENTLY of the allegations.

Not getting a SCOTUS appointment is not "being taken down." If he had shown any humility while maintaining his innocence, people might feel a lot differently about him. But no he is a saint and we are all Clinton apologists. This will make the GOP lose the Senate ultimately.

He’s been investigated six times. He’s clean. Keep trying to get him though. It’s very entertaining to watch the hysteria blow up in your faces.

You’re confusing background checks for investigations.

It's called a background INVESTIGATION. And, the FBI conducted yet another investigation after these bogus allegations were leveled. So did the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Result: NADA
Move on.

Please stop talking if you don't know WTF you're blathering on about. Background investigations are NOT the same. Anyone in a government position will tell you that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.

Praise be

Anonymous wrote:You will be rewarded in heaven for your work defending Bart O'Beer on an anonymous message board, Becky I, II, and II'

Under his eye

You will not be rewarded in heaven for your tireless efforts to smear the reputation of a good person based on vague, decades old allegations from high school, Karen. You should be ashamed, but clearly you’re incapable of feeling shame.