User Tag List

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 141

Thread: Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA

  1. #31
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
    It is a big semantics game here but, even though Ms Keyser does not openly refute her friend's testimony her statement refutes it.
    EXACTLY!

    But don't expect the liberals to understand that because it is way above their pay grade!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    rocketman (September 30th, 2018)

  3. #32
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by MrDante View Post
    what evidence is there that hypnosis was involved at all?
    Why won't her lawyers release the information concerning how she supposedly recovered her memory?

    I thought that they want everything about this matter to be investigated.

  4. #33
    Resident Rocket Surgeon rocketman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,874
    Thanks
    299
    Thanked 1,807 Times in 1,239 Posts

    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147629
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Why won't her lawyers release the information concerning how she supposedly recovered her memory?

    I thought that they want everything about this matter to be investigated.
    The libs begged for an FBI investigation and if you think she will not be investigated also, I think you would be mistaken. Ms. Ford may get more than she bargained for hitching her wagon to these politicians and they will kick her to the curb just as fast if anything nefarious is found...count on it.
    The winner of the 2011 Truthsmacker of the Year Award

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...pictureid=3504


    Help Take Back Our Country from Washington D.C.. with the Convention of States

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rocketman For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 12th, 2018),Jerry Shugart (October 12th, 2018)

  6. #34
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,822
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,048 Times in 678 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    382989
    And you guys are lawyers, Hunh?

  7. #35
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    And you guys are lawyers, Hunh?
    I know enough about the basic principles of law in free countries to know that the accuser has to prove the accusations and the one being accused does not have the burden of proof.

    The Democrats seem confused about this because they say that Kavanaugh has the burden.

    What say you?

  8. #36
    Over 5000 post club CatholicCrusader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked 711 Times in 583 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192544
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    .......The Democrats are doing their very best to destroy the basic principles upon which the USA was founded because of their thirst of power.......
    This is true. in their world, Capitalism would be replaced by Socialism, and several amendments to the Bill of Rights would be destroyed. It would literally be a new Soviet Union. They are the embodiment of evil in today's society.

    "God never gives someone a gift they are not capable of receiving. If he gives us the gift of Christmas, it is because we all have the ability to understand and receive it." - Pope Francis

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CatholicCrusader For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 12th, 2018),Jerry Shugart (October 12th, 2018)

  10. #37
    Over 5000 post club CatholicCrusader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked 711 Times in 583 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192544
    (link went bad)
    Last edited by CatholicCrusader; October 12th, 2018 at 01:27 PM.

    "God never gives someone a gift they are not capable of receiving. If he gives us the gift of Christmas, it is because we all have the ability to understand and receive it." - Pope Francis

  11. #38
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,266
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,791 Times in 4,513 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    The whole charade is a horrible offense to the basic principles of justice in which a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to claims of sexual assault, however, the man is automatically deemed guilty … and the accuser praised for her courage and bravery before the veracity of the assertion is ever deliberated.
    The presumption of innocence only exists in a criminal prosecution. The reason for that presumption is that the state is a moving party, the accusing party, and that carries with it the authority and resources of the state. The only chance you or I have of standing against that begins with the presumption and a very hard standard for the prosecution to meet.

    It's a great idea. But it isn't a great idea for a hearing where we don't have the state as an actor, where what we have are two competing narratives and a powerful outcome. It isn't a kangaroo court, or any kind of court. The end of the process wasn't a conviction, but a promotion or the denial of a job opportunity.

    Sadly, the Committee decided to act like attorneys for the disparate sides of the narrative.

    Now on to a few other ideas in this piece.

    Kavanaugh's High School years inquiry.

    The questions about his conduct and even the annual were aimed at providing insight into the character and conduct of Judge Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident. That's probative. The accusations go to that period and who he was at that time has direct bearing on both narratives.

    I agree the Committee was an embarrassing and partisan group of bickering children. And agendas were readily apparent, largely aimed at midterms and by both sides of the aisle. It's telling that the author here doesn't appear to see more than one agenda, leaving off the at-the-ready narrative by the right advanced first by Graham and then by everyone along the talking points line of the Republican Party and its media outlets, that the dems are dangerous and should not be given any real measure of power.

    Then the author goes on an irrational, partisan screed about one party, the party with literally no real power at all at present, charging them with trying to destroy basic American principles and managing to work in communism in the attempt. That's almost as embarrassing as the hearings were and about as thought out. Then the trotting out of the "mainstream media" as part of the author's conspiracy theory put an exclamation on his train wreck of a critique.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (October 12th, 2018),WizardofOz (October 12th, 2018)

  13. #39
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The presumption of innocence only exists in a criminal prosecution.
    So if someone tells your wife that you have been having an affair with another woman behind her back then how will the matter be resolved?

    Do you have to prove that you haven't or does the accusing party have to give proof that you have been having an affair?

  14. #40
    Over 4000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,990
    Thanks
    1,777
    Thanked 2,294 Times in 1,269 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1338657
    @Jerry Shugart @rocketman @fool @CatholicCrusader

    Do you believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
    Why or why not?
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  15. #41
    Over 4000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,990
    Thanks
    1,777
    Thanked 2,294 Times in 1,269 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1338657
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    So if someone tells your wife that you have been having an affair with another woman behind her back then how will the matter be resolved?

    Do you have to prove that you haven't or does the accusing party have to give proof that you have been having an affair?
    If your daughter told you she was sexually assaulted would you believe her or would you tell her to come back when she has proof?
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  16. #42
    Over 5000 post club CatholicCrusader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    431
    Thanked 711 Times in 583 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192544
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    If your daughter told you she was sexually assaulted would you believe her or would you tell her to come back when she has proof?
    Typical ignorant question: Believing her, and immediately having someone thrown in prison based on her word alone are two different things

    Believing something happened is not the same as condemning a man without any evidence.

    "God never gives someone a gift they are not capable of receiving. If he gives us the gift of Christmas, it is because we all have the ability to understand and receive it." - Pope Francis

  17. #43
    Over 4000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    4,990
    Thanks
    1,777
    Thanked 2,294 Times in 1,269 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1338657
    Quote Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
    immediately having someone thrown in prison based on her word alone
    Who even suggested this?

    I don't think CatholicCrusader knows how to read
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    fool (October 12th, 2018),Town Heretic (October 12th, 2018)

  19. #44
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,447
    Thanks
    264
    Thanked 903 Times in 616 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    284722
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    @Jerry Shugart @rocketman @fool @CatholicCrusader

    Do you believe that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
    Why or why not?
    I know he ejaculated on Monica Lewinsky because she had the dress.
    I know that doesn't answer the question.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fool For Your Post:

    ok doser (October 12th, 2018),WizardofOz (October 12th, 2018)

  21. #45
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,266
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,791 Times in 4,513 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    So if someone tells your wife that you have been having an affair with another woman behind her back then how will the matter be resolved?
    With laughter, I'd imagine. And with an accuser walking away in a huff.

    Do you have to prove that you haven't or does the accusing party have to give proof that you have been having an affair?
    That's not a parallel to the hearing. In your hypothetical we don't have a neutral third party. We have people with allegiances and obligations being asked to consider something that would interrupt those. We have vested interests in conflict.

    Here's a closer parallel. I'm a judge. Two people come into my court with a disagreement. The first person claims that the second person worked a harm against them. The second person denies the claim, says the first person is mistaken. I'd ask the first person what proof they have to sustain the charge. If I found the proof compelling I'd ask for the other person to provide any information that might mitigate the impression. If not I'd dismiss the claim from the outset.

    I wouldn't presume either party was telling the truth. There's no reason for me to and every reason for me to remain an impartial third party with a singular interest in the truth.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 12th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us