New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Democrats Foot in Mouths: Blasey Ford's Attorney Admits Her Testimony was Politically Motivated

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
not exactly a true analogy. If my perspective employers instead of a job competitor made the accusation I think the analogy would be apt.

And then yes, the burden would fall on me to prove I wasn't a rapist. Or I wouldn't expect the job.
Wow, that's not justice in my book.

And, an impasse with American justice.

But, you can have your opinion! I'm glad we don't live in that skewed world, at least not completely yet. I bet you're pumped that many unproven claims can harm people who you disagree with. I guess we're different in that I require sufficient evidence of the claim before I take it as correct.

I hope nobody just decides you need to be punished and calls you a rapist.
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
justice is not a part of any job interview.
Wow, I'm glad for this clarity. I thank you for your honestly.

I say I saw you at a high school party groping a woman who was saying "stop!"... prove me wrong, accept the public shame, and gladly give up any job you have.

Justice indeed.

We're at an impasse here. No need to continue. You're idea of "justice" is really messed up.
 

Mick

Mayor
not exactly a true analogy. If my perspective employers instead of a job competitor made the accusation I think the analogy would be apt.

And then yes, the burden would fall on me to prove I wasn't a rapist. Or I wouldn't expect the job.
Ahh, but if the one doing the interview determined the accusations against you were meritless, based upon hatred of you and what you stand for, and had no corroborating witnesses then his decision to hire you despite those accusations (like the Senate did with Kavanaugh) would be appropriate, yes?
 
Ahh, but if the one doing the interview determined the accusations against you were meritless, based upon hatred of you and what you stand for, and had no corroborating witnesses then his decision to hire you despite those accusations (like the Senate did with Kavanaugh) would be appropriate, yes?
Not if the senate wants to get re-elected.
 

Mick

Mayor
Not if the senate wants to get re-elected.
None of the Senators who voted for Kavanaugh lost re-election. Several Democrats who voted against him did, however. Ouch.

I'll repeat. If the person or persons felt that accusations were sketchy, meritless and motivated by hatred of the person rather than facts then that is their right to hire that person, correct? You keep dodging this question.
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
None of the Senators who voted for Kavanaugh lost re-election. Several Democrats who voted against him did, however. Ouch.

I'll repeat. If the person or persons felt that accusations were sketchy, meritless and motivated by hatred of the person rather than facts then that is their right to hire that person, correct? You keep dodging this question.
Indeed he does.

This is part of the "Any means necessary" doctrine of leftism. Even if we have to assume guilt in an unfair manner, it's worth it if it gets a Conservative out of a pivotal office.

But, if a Conservative claims rape against a Democrat? Well, that's a witch hunt!

Unlike Obamacareforever, I prefer consistency and fairness to people.
 

Mr. Friscus

I think, therefore, I poop
Which two have been convicted of rape?

How about charged with rape?
He can't offer any evidence, he just has faith that it is true. And it seems that he thinks the claim is bolstered if merely repeated over and over.. without evidence.

The CNN treatment.
 
Top