Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats Destroying the Most Important Principles of Justice in the USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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!

    Comment


    • #32
      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        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

        Comment


        • #34
          And you guys are lawyers, Hunh?

          Comment


          • #35
            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?

            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                (link went bad)
                Last edited by CatholicCrusader; October 12th, 2018, 01:27 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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






                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] [MENTION=13042]rocketman[/MENTION] [MENTION=4370]fool[/MENTION] [MENTION=15148]CatholicCrusader[/MENTION]

                      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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by WizardofOz View Post
                              [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION] [MENTION=13042]rocketman[/MENTION] [MENTION=4370]fool[/MENTION] [MENTION=15148]CatholicCrusader[/MENTION]

                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X