On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just
don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman. My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if
that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it.

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just
don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman. My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if
that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

--
Posted with my iPad Pro


It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his
character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry.
--
x

On 9/28/2018 9:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just
don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman. My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if
that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

--
Posted with my iPad Pro


It's amazing how you are able to gain more insight into his
character than the FBI. You da man, Fat Harry.



The FBI doesn't assess character in the course of these background checks,
****-for-brains.


The FBI doesn't make a character judgement but collects information
related to character that may be considered by the
organization requesting the background check.

Kavanaugh has had six such background checks.

When I was in the Navy my job required a TS Cryto security clearance.
An FBI background check was conducted. I learned later from friends,
neighbors and former school teachers that several had been interviewed
by a FBI agent who collected their impressions of my character and if
there were any issues they were aware of that would make me
untrustworthy of holding the required clearance.

That's how it works.

On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left. If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford. She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue. Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes. Somethings just
don't add up. I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, would be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman. My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein. I can't remember if
that question was asked of her. I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible. Call it a tie. The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories. In that case Kavanaugh won hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with: "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"? Wow.

There are really two issues with the testimonies of yesterday.

1. Was Ford's testimony and claims credible? IMO ... yes.
Was it backed up with solid evidence? No.

2. Was Kavanaugh's testimony credible? IMO ... yes.
Was it backed up with solid evidence .. Yes.

Winner: Kavanaugh.

Sorry. Oh ... Senator Flake just announced he agrees and will vote
for Kavanaugh's confirmation.

Now the Senate committee will vote. But not until that blowhard
Blumenthal finishes a last ditch attempt to delay again.

On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.Â* If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.Â* She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue.Â* Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.Â* Somethings just
don't add up.Â* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, wouldÂ* be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman.Â* My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein.Â*Â* I can't remember if
that question was asked of her.Â* I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.Â* Call it a tie.Â*Â* The
tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories.Â* In that case Kavanaugh won
hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either
former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with:Â* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup
to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs
would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"?Â*Â* Wow.


I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would
approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk,
and an attacker of women.

On 9/28/2018 11:27 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of
gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into
their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.Â* If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.Â* She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue.Â* Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.Â* Somethings just
don't add up.Â* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, wouldÂ* be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman.Â* My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein.Â*Â* I can't remember if
that question was asked of her.Â* I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.Â* Call it a tie.
The tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories.Â* In that case Kavanaugh won
hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and
either former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who
will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with:Â* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some
backup to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs
would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"?Â*Â* Wow.


I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would
approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk,
and an attacker of women.




Deferring to your superior writing skills, I won't debate how one can
parse your sentence, "My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh
and how the Repubs would approve a mass murderer for that seat."

On second thought, I think I will:

To me, you are including Kavanaugh as a mass murderer.

If you don't think Kavanaugh is a mass murderer, to be clear it should
have been two different sentences representing two different thoughts of
opinion. Example:

"My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh."
"Republicans would approve a mass murderer for that seat".

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:27:54 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 9:42 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 9:18 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/28/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:


It's amazing to me how two sides can have totally different views or
conclusions regarding this whole mess.

The way I see it the strategy of the Dems was to delay, delay, delay
hoping to push this off until after the midterms with hopes of gaining
control in Congress.

It's politics, but as each of the delaying tactics ran their course
and a confirmation vote became eminent, the Dems dug deeper into their
delaying tactics eventually getting close to the bottom of the barrel
and the anti-Kavanaugh sleaze campaign was all that was left.Â* If
the Dems had been able to block Kavanaugh's confirmation prior
to Ford's letter becoming public, we would never had heard of it.

I agree with my wife's opinion about Ford.Â* She comes across as a
troubled woman possibly with issues that are not
related to the Kavanaugh issue.Â* Just a guess but she seems very
insecure for someone with an advanced degree (PhD) in psychiatry,
a university professor who should be very comfortable in public
appearances and ... is well traveled in airplanes.Â* Somethings just
don't add up.Â* I asked my wife if, as a woman, she thought that
the claims of a "sexual assault" as Ford described it while in HS,
at a party that involved drinking and in which no actual rape
occurred, wouldÂ* be an experience that would cause a life-long
trauma in a woman.Â* My wife said no way.

That's all I can go by as a male.

I also wonder if Ford's decision to write the letter
to Feinstein was something she did completely on her own
when she learned of Kavanaugh's nomination or did she
communicate privately with friends or associates who
encouraged her to contact Feinstein.Â*Â* I can't remember if
that question was asked of her.Â* I know it's cynical but Ford
is a university professor in California, a breeding ground for
progressive liberal obstructionism to anything Trump.

I agree that both her testimony of what she thinks happened and
Kavanaugh's defense of himself were credible.Â* Call it a tie.Â*Â* The
tie
breaker therefore is which of the two were able to provide credible
evidence that backed up their stories.Â* In that case Kavanaugh won
hands
down.

He should be confirmed and put this whole mess behind us before the
sleazy campaign orchestrated by the Democrats becomes the norm for
future debates.



Kavanaugh is a lying, short-tempered, sexually aggressive and either
former
or current drunk and is perfectly suited as a Trump nominee who will be
seated because the Repubs went totally tribal to protect him.



My post started with:Â* "It's amazing to me how two sides can have
totally different views or conclusions regarding this whole mess."

Your response only confirms what I said except your's is based
simply on a prejudiced political opinion whereas mine had some backup
to it.



My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs
would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.


Now he's a "mass murderer"?Â*Â* Wow.


I didn't say Kavanaugh was a mass murdered. I said the Repubs would
approve one if one were nominated. Kavanaugh simply is a liar, a drunk,
and an attacker of women.


Too bad there is no evidence of any of that but it never stopped
democrats.
I do find it funny that the same people who will leap to the defense
of a known thug like Trayvonn Martin or Michael Brown are so quick to
demonize a federal judge, simply because Trump tried to elevate him.

In article ,
says...


My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass
murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court.
Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS!
Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated,
but to be expected with the state of the Republican party.
Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed.
BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined.

On 9/28/2018 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass
murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court.
Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS!
Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated,
but to be expected with the state of the Republican party.
Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed.
BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined.



I suppose that if Kavanaugh were a sniveling frat-boy, anti-Republican,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament his nomination would
have been supported unanimously by Democrats.

That's all this is all about. Period.

The Dems are still trying to block his confirmation vote
as I type.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:58:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/28/2018 9:46 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


My opinion is based upon the reality of Kavanaugh and how the Repubs would
approve a mass murderer for that seat.

Well, Kavanaugh is only a sniveling frat-boy anti-Democrat,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament, not a mass
murderer. A fine addition to compliment Thomas on the court.
Just think of it: an avowed partisan drunk crybaby on SCOTUS!
Regretable that such an lying ****sack should be so elevated,
but to be expected with the state of the Republican party.
Chief Justice Roberts is sorely disappointed.
BTW, when the term for SCOTUS was set at "life," the average
life was 36 years. Its obvious that should be examined.



I suppose that if Kavanaugh were a sniveling frat-boy, anti-Republican,
attemped rapist, without judicial temperament his nomination would
have been supported unanimously by Democrats.

That's all this is all about. Period.

The Dems are still trying to block his confirmation vote
as I type.

This, like most things in American politics is all about abortion and
guns. The same people who have their hair on fire about Kavanaugh felt
the same way last week (including Harry) but it was all about Roe.
I imagine if you could get them to stop talking about Roe for a second
they would say they think Kavanaugh would be soft on gun control.

I am agnostic on abortion since I think the government should stay out
of it either way. If I did want the government to be involved in any
way, it would be to make abortion a covered service under medicaid
along with any birth control services available today.
Both of those are huge money savers.