This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Oh, Seaoat, you there?

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 7]

1 Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/27/2018, 4:17 pm

Still think he's gonna be confirmed?

View user profile

2 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/27/2018, 4:34 pm

Deus X wrote:Still think he's gonna be confirmed?





You talk as if Judge Queeg won't be confirmed. lol!

View user profile

3 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/27/2018, 4:38 pm

Telstar wrote: Judge Queeg...

MANY MUCH you know the rest...

View user profile

4 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 5:11 am

Uh oh. It's not lookin' so good, Corker is going to vote to confirm. That leaves Collins, Murkowski and Flake--two of them have to vote against. Plus Manchin might support him which means all three of them would have to vote against. Crap!

View user profile

5 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 8:35 am

Yeah, they'll probably ram him through, even though he's a bad choice, both for the eternal cloud of "he's probably a sex offender" and for other reasons. But Trump wants his get-out-of-jail-free card, and that's what he sees in this scumbag.

Republicans are feeling really bulletproof now (why, I don't know, considering Trump squeaked into office due to only a Lollapalooza-crowd's worth of votes spread over four or five states) and they're abusing the hell out of it. But that's going to build a backlash, and when the bill comes due -- and it absolutely will -- they're going to be paying for it for a lawwwwwng-ass time.

Dumb thing is, even if they let Kavanaugh go, they'd still have their Supreme Court, most likely. Even if Dems take the House and Senate, they're not likely to refuse to seat a nominee for two years. I know the Republicans would (ala Merrick Garland), but the Democrats do have some sense of shame. Why Republicans are so insistent on this particular asshole, other than his unwillingness to apply the rule of law to Trump, is kinda odd.

View user profile

6 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 8:50 am

View user profile

7 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 12:59 pm


Recommended reading for Seaoat:

View user profile

8 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 1:03 pm

12:36, CNN" Flake a "yes" vote; Donnelly, Tester to vote "NO".

View user profile

9 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 1:53 pm

othershoe1030 wrote:12:36, CNN" Flake a "yes" vote; Donnelly, Tester to vote "NO".

I knew Flake was flaky.

View user profile

10 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 2:00 pm

Floridatexan wrote:I knew Flake was flaky.

He's NOT flaky, he's saying he won't vote yes on the Senate floor unless there's an FBI investigation of the allegations.

View user profile

11 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 2:40 pm

Been gone on a short vacation with the wife. I have not been watching tv or looking online, but why......everything I predicted will come true.......

View user profile

12 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 3:08 pm

2seaoat wrote:Been gone on a short vacation with the wife.  I have not been watching tv or looking online, but why......everything I predicted will come true.......

I wouldn't count on that just yet, it now depends on a limited FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

His appearance before the committee was shameful--he's unstable and a little nuts.

View user profile

13 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 5:02 pm

His appearance before the committee was shameful--he's unstable and a little nuts.


I only saw his opening statement, and was traveling when he was questioned by senators. I would not respect a man who would not be angry after being accused of gang raping girls when he was 17.......sorry, I thought his response was remarkable, but Mrs. Seaoat has been piszed at me for being right, as if I would advocate to suspend equal protection of the law and due process because he was a male, drinking, football player, entitled, arrogant, and trump's choice.....seething would be the only way to describe Mrs. Seaoat as I explained how orchestrated this current FBI investigation is........which would have made it much easier to defeat this nomination in committee, but they affirmed his nomination and sent it to the floor of the senate for vote.....so now being allowed to escape the whole FBI investigation avoidance, the Republicans once more have completely pulled off the charade of the year.......again he will be confirmed, and this chit show will forever damage the standard of proof of how we handle unsubstantiated accusations forty years later.......the entire proposition has been twilight zone, but in the end the Republicans simply own the democrats, and if Booker and Harris are the voice of the new Democratic Party, let me be the first to announce the coronation of King Trump.

View user profile

14 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 5:34 pm

2seaoat wrote:I only saw his opening statement, and was traveling when he was questioned by senators.  I would not respect a man who would not be angry after being accused of gang raping girls when he was 17.......sorry, I thought his response was remarkable, but Mrs. Seaoat has been piszed at me for being right, as if I would advocate to suspend equal protection of the law and due process because he was a male, drinking, football player, entitled, arrogant, and trump's choice.....seething would be the only way to describe Mrs. Seaoat as I explained how orchestrated this current FBI investigation is........which would have made it much easier to defeat this nomination in committee, but they affirmed his nomination and sent it to the floor of the senate for vote.....so now being allowed to escape the whole FBI investigation avoidance, the Republicans once more have completely pulled off the charade of the year.......again he will be confirmed, and this chit show will forever damage the standard of proof of how we handle unsubstantiated accusations forty years later.......the entire proposition has been twilight zone, but in the end the Republicans simply own the democrats, and if Booker and Harris are the voice of the new Democratic Party, let me be the first to announce the coronation of King Trump.

He showed himself to be an angry, sniveling wretch, unworthy of a job polishing chairs in a law library much less a seat on the Supreme Court. His nomination will never get as far as a Senate vote, he'll either withdraw himself or be withdrawn by the White House.

Once the FBI interviews Mark Judge, he's toast.

Watch this: [then stuff a sock in it about Kavanaugh]



Buh bye, Kavanaugh.

View user profile

15 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 6:20 pm

Buh bye, Kavanaugh.

51 Republicans just voted that this matter can go to vote. Catch up.....take a hot shower to remove some of that talking heads and Democratic Party Party Hubris....you need to scrub real hard because it is very thick and deprives your brain of O2. It is like watching small children convince me that dragons are real.

View user profile

16 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 6:38 pm

Deus X wrote:

Once the FBI interviews Mark Judge, he's toast.


Oh? What do you think Mark Judge is going to say he hasn't already?

Mark Judge does not remember the alleged night in question. And that will likely be the entire scope of any statement he gives the FBI.

View user profile

17 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 6:46 pm

2seaoat wrote:Buh bye, Kavanaugh.

51 Republicans just voted that this matter can go to vote.

Yeah, it can go to a vote after the FBI goes through his dirty laundry.

I've never seen anything like yesterday--first Ford's statement, her questioning, then Kavanaugh's opening statement and then the questioning by that sex crimes prosecutor.

It was obvious that Graham stopped her and took over the questioning because, if he hadn't, that idiot Kavanaugh was either going to perjure himself or get his ass in a crack. I've never seen anything like it, it's obvious that the Republicans have lost confidence in Kavanaugh and he won't even make it to a vote.


View user profile

18 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 6:49 pm

EmeraldGhost wrote:Oh?  What do you think Mark Judge is going to say he hasn't already?

Mark Judge does not remember the alleged night in question.  And that will likely be the entire scope of any statement he gives the FBI.


No, he SAID he doesn't recall the event. The FBI is going to refresh his recollection and he'll say whatever it takes to keep himself out of jail.

View user profile

19 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 6:55 pm

Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:Oh?  What do you think Mark Judge is going to say he hasn't already?

Mark Judge does not remember the alleged night in question.  And that will likely be the entire scope of any statement he gives the FBI.


No, he SAID he doesn't recall the event. The FBI is going to refresh his recollection and he'll say whatever it takes to keep himself out of jail.

What are you thinking?  They're going to waterboard him or something? Inject him with sodium pentothal? Trump up some Federal charges and then offer him a plea deal if he'll tell them what the Democrats want to hear? Rolling Eyes That's not how it works. The FBI won't be making judgments as to the person's credibility or trying to "trip them up." They will just take sworn statements and turn them in. And you can be sure the interviewing Agents will be under strict instructions to do just and only that.

Mark Judge doesn't have to answer any questions he doesn't want to answer .... or any questions at all, if he so chooses. He already declined to say anything more to the Senate committee ... so why would he say anything more to whatever FBI Agent they send out to his house to take his statement?

View user profile

20 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 9:14 pm

Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Been gone on a short vacation with the wife.  I have not been watching tv or looking online, but why......everything I predicted will come true.......

I wouldn't count on that just yet, it now depends on a limited FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

His appearance before the committee was shameful--he's unstable and a little nuts.
_______

___He may be a "dry drunk." I heard a discussion about this on the radio today and all the symptoms are there. Of course, that's if he wasn't actually just drunk yesterday. He was dehydrated, drank a ton of water. Rolled his tongue around in his dry mouth all day. His obvious tourettes was exaggerated- those nose twitches are textbook tourettes, plus his inability to keep quiet when he should do so. There's nothing wrong with someone with tourettes being on the court, it isn't a mental illness. But being a dry drunk is. He seemed drunk to me yesterday-the quick shifts from normal to crying, all of it. Reminded me of an alcoholic uncle I used to have. He needs therapy, not to be on the court.

View user profile

21 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 9:27 pm

Another thing is, why did he say it's destroyed his family? Did his wife tell him he couldn't get caught drunk during the confirmation period so he's had to do without his crutch? Is he pissed at her? Or did she realize (maybe he admitted it)that all these accusations were true? She looked more angry yesterday than sympathetic to me. I wonder which of them made up the story about Little Liza and her prayer for "the woman." What a lying scumbag. Using his daughter to try and get a job.
Whatever it's all about, his family should not have been "destroyed" unless he's admitted it is true. This challenge should have brought them closer together. What a whiney little b___H. Oh, I forgot, that's Bill Maher's name for Trump. Of course, one of these guys is a lot like the other.

View user profile

22 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 9:47 pm

Reminded me of an alcoholic uncle

This is getting way too much fun, and I need to maybe tone my honest responses down.....so I will say this......so the new standard of proof is now alcohol consumption disqualifies you, and your uncle is the standard......pure twilight zone. He will be confirmed and exactly as I predicted he will be worse than Thomas in his bitterness and rancor. Duh brilliant Democratic Party last minute panicked chit storm......if we only knew this when Edward Kennedy was alive, but when he was a young married man he was driving drunk and drowning young girls we just did not understand that drinking beer could be such a problem. Some of the best judges I have ever known were heavy drinkers. Who knew, but I bet if we look at his junior high yearbook, we could find out he huffed glue when building model planes with his dad......pleaseeeeeeeeeeee

View user profile

23 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 9:57 pm

Teddy Kennedy was reelected by the people of Massachusetts, but that incident did cost him any chance he ever had of becoming POTUS. He could have never been elected by all of the American people with that behind him.

Your assertion that it is fine for a drunk to rule from the bench on any issue is ridiculous.Alcohol alters judgment. Apparently, you disagree with every doctor who ever studied the issue.
This man did not handle alcohol well as a teen, and we don't know how well he handles it now. I don't know if he had a drink yesterday before his hearing, but he was awfully dehydrated, his nervous tics were out of control, and his ranting about Bill Clinton was insane.
He's not stable and doesn't belong on the court. He may get there, but he damned sure does not belong there.
I actually think that if the FBI gets anywhere close to the truth of what happened during his high school years, he'll bow out.

View user profile

24 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 10:00 pm

Whatever it's all about, his family should not have been "destroyed"

I had a similar experience as the judge when I ran for office. A false statement was submitted to a newspaper, and it took three days for the story to be contradicted by a state agency, but the damage was done. My wife will tell you the story when I am gone, but the person who made the false accusation was three months later jailed on felony charges......but the damages were done as the stories were above the fold. In fairness, each paper gave me a chance to respond and contradict the falsehood, and I simply told the newspapers that good people do not run for office if this is what the standard had become. I stopped all financing on the campaign, and just coasted to the election coming in third out of four candidates. I found out that a developer and spouse of one of the candidates got the newspaper to talk with this crazy person.....they ran the story without validation, and what is funny, ten years later they were sued by an Illinois Supreme Court Justice and got a six million dollar verdict against the newspaper which eventually went under. So If I seem skeptical of these type of witch hunts, I have first hand experience with unsubstantiated claims being on the front page of the paper.

It was nice to be vindicated completely, but to say the Judge or his family will ever be vindicated.......it is too late. The narrative is now about drinking and high school yearbooks........due process demands more than faded memories from almost forty years ago.

View user profile

25 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/28/2018, 10:07 pm

He's not stable and doesn't belong on the court.

I gained nothing but respect for the man on his opening statement. This man has been attacked by the far left, and yes.....part of their war cry has been Karma for the Clintons. I did not see anything from him which shows instability in that statement, but in fairness I did not watch senators question him because I was traveling.

He will be confirmed.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 7]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum