This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Oh, Seaoat, you there?

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

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 7]

126 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 4:50 pm

2seaoat wrote:This has become so silly. he is now disqualified because he is suspected to be an alcoholic, yet when Notorious RBG admits to being wasted in public it is cute.......well SNL has made her a likeable impaired justice....




Damon nailed the judge, and again.....double standard.


He's disqualified now for the way he behaved accusing Clinton and the Democrats of this conspiracy. His impartiality is fatally impugned.

View user profile

127 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 5:19 pm

Kavanaugh also said Clinton had “lied to his aides”, “lied to the American people” and “disgraced … the office” with a “sustained propaganda campaign that would make Nixon blush”.
_____________
Well, that proves the man isn't smart enough to be on the court. Nothing could make Nixon blush.

I still like Tricky Dick, crooked as he was. He was a good president in many ways.He could be a racist and totally paranoid and still a good POTUS, unlike Trump.
Maybe if Trump would start talking to the pictures on the walls like Nixon did, he'd get some advice on how to be a real president.

View user profile

128 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 7:03 pm

Bill was taking advantage of a young intern. For fucks sake... are y'all seriously still running cover for that?

View user profile

129 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 8:19 pm

PkrBum wrote:Bill was taking advantage of a young intern. For fucks sake... are y'all seriously still running cover for that?

Had he been a civil service employee he'd very likely been fired over that.

Personally, I felt then and still feel he should have been removed from office.  But it's all ancient (and tawdry) history now.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 9/30/2018, 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

130 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 9:06 pm

PkrBum wrote:Bill was taking advantage of a young intern. For fucks sake... are y'all seriously still running cover for that?


Oh seriously, Little Ms Monica was in her 20's and her friend Linda informed us all that the first thing Monica did when she met the president was to ask him if he wanted to see her panties.Monica never had the dress cleaned so she could have evidence against Clinton in the future.

The doctor was 15 years old. There is absolutely NO comparison.
She didn't even write it on a little calendar.

Did anybody check the age of the ink on Kavanaugh's calendar? There were several different colors of ink used. It's a piece of trash as evidence of anything.

View user profile

131 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 9:19 pm

bigdog wrote:

Oh seriously, Little Ms Monica was in her 20's

I agree there is a difference in what Kavanugh is alleged to have done and what Bill Clinton is known to have done.  

But as to Clinton's thing .... Lewinsky was an intern.  Clinton was in an official  position of authority over her.  Her consent and age does not come into play.  Any Federal civil service manager could (and should IMO) be fired for hooking up with an intern.  Doubly wrong in Clinton's case because it was on govt property on govt time.  I saw a case of it once ... the manager was demoted back to a non-managerial/non-supervisory field position and involuntarily transferred to a pretty sucky duty station.

Had Clinton been a Republican I bet you'd be just all foaming at the mouth with feminist rage.   (and have you forgotten all the allegations of Saint Bill forcing himself on women?)

View user profile

132 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 9:37 pm

bigdog wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Bill was taking advantage of a young intern. For fucks sake... are y'all seriously still running cover for that?


Oh seriously, Little Ms Monica was in her 20's and her friend Linda informed us all that the first thing Monica did when she met the president was to ask him if he wanted to see her panties.Monica never had the dress cleaned so she could have evidence against Clinton in the future.

The doctor was 15 years old. There is absolutely NO comparison.
She didn't even write it on a little calendar.

Did anybody check the age of the ink on Kavanaugh's calendar? There were several different colors of ink used. It's a piece of trash as evidence of anything.

Actually it is weird that a person would keep such an old calendar but interestingly it seems to contradict his testimony that he never drank during the week. The entry for July first lists a workout session with ski's (brewskis...beer, duh) at Timmy's. FBI could easily find Timmy's parent's house on that date. Judge's name is mentioned too.

As per Dr. Ford's account at the hearing the party was not anything special and her attack took place out of sight and earshot of the few others who were there. It is not surprising that no one else knew of the event except herself and the two boys present in the bedroom since the other people were downstairs and she left without speaking to anyone. Naturally she just wanted to get away.

It is too bad that the person questioning K about his calendar did not notice the Thursday entry with the reference to "skis".

Fun fact:


Throughout his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh made at least one thing very clear: He likes beer. A lot.

Kavanaugh mentioned his affinity for brewskis around 30 times Thursday as he defended himself against allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in the early 1980s when the two were in high school.

We highlighted some of his more emphatic odes to beer below:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/brett-kavanaugh-likes-beer

Also, he falsely claimed that he could drink legally in Maryland in 1982 when in fact the law wasn't changed from 21 to 18 until Feb. 12, 1983 according to Snopes.

View user profile

133 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 9/30/2018, 11:43 pm

EmeraldGhost wrote:
bigdog wrote:

Oh seriously, Little Ms Monica was in her 20's

I agree there is a difference in what Kavanugh is alleged to have done and what Bill Clinton is known to have done.  

But as to Clinton's thing .... Lewinsky was an intern.  Clinton was in an official  position of authority over her.  Her consent and age does not come into play.  Any Federal civil service manager could (and should IMO) be fired for hooking up with an intern.  Doubly wrong in Clinton's case because it was on govt property on govt time.  I saw a case of it once ... the manager was demoted back to a non-managerial/non-supervisory field position and involuntarily transferred to a pretty sucky duty station.

Had Clinton been a Republican I bet you'd be just all foaming at the mouth with feminist rage.   (and have you forgotten all the allegations of Saint Bill forcing himself on women?)


___I don't care all that much about a president's sex life in or out of the White House. In fact, Donald Trump's being a disgusting womanizer really doesn't bother me about him. What does bother me is that Church people are willing to overlook it. His lying bothers me, his deep racism bothers me, and pretty much every act he's taken since he's been in the White House bothers me. What bothers me most is the fact that he committed treason by inviting the Russians into our election process.
Nixon was a good president and he was a crook, Eisenhower was a good president and he had an affair with his driver, Roosevelt was a great president and the day he died in Warm Springs,Ga., his lover was at his side, not his wife. And Benjamin Franklin was certainly one of our greatest Americans, We were in Philadelphia a month ago and saw the spot where he died with the daughter of one of his housekeepers at his side. They were reportedly lovers at the time. Thomas Jefferson took a slave as a lover,but his sin wasn't in loving a slave it was in owning slaves. I don't care, Republican or Democrat. The only living American with a reason to take what Clinton did personally was Hillary, and half of America hates her guts because she had the unmitigated gall to do the Christian thing of forgiving her husband.
No, I do not obsess about Bill Clinton and a willing, adult intern giving him a BJ, either under the desk or on top of it. A lot of crap has happened in that Oval Office that was worse than that.
This is about a FIFTEEN year old girl. She was only in the 10th grade. I'm not surprised that somebody would bring Monica into the discussion because Republicans obsession with the Clinton name is an incurable mental disease.
But this is about a CHILD, It might even be considered child molestation by the law. There's no statute of limitations in Maryland on the crime. There's nothing irrelevant about that.

View user profile

134 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/1/2018, 4:23 am

EmeraldGhost wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Bill was taking advantage of a young intern. For fucks sake... are y'all seriously still running cover for that?

Had he been a civil service employee he'd very likely been fired over that.

Personally, I felt then and still feel he should have been removed from office.  But it's all ancient (and tawdry) history now.

Ahh Lewinski went after Clinton. She was obsessed w/ him. Her own admission in her book. He was weak. If he should have been removed then so should all the Presidents that had affairs and there were quite a few. She wasn't an employee. She was a 21 yr. old woman.

View user profile

135 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/1/2018, 5:20 pm

PkrBum wrote:It's just a political ploy for useful idiots. Resisting with a wedge issue to motivate the huddled masses. It's really a win/win for the leftist ruling class. If they could manufacture a way to disqualify this qualified judge... win. If they can't it can still motivate their underlings... win. Gawd they're easy.

Btw... we all lose if this tactic succeeds... and i don't really like kavanaugh that much. He's way too progressive with his support of govt authority. He's a defender of an unrestrained govt such as in the patriot act.


lol! Okay, I for-real almost hurt myself laughing when I read this.

God, what a wishy-washy, never-stands-for-anything nutless fuck you are. This is becoming self-satire already. Very Happy

Your whole act is "I don't really back anybody" while being partisan to the bone. Do you actually believe this shit, or are we just supposed to buy it?

Every day it's stuff like:

"I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him, I think he's a clown... but I'm going to spend every waking minute for years arguing tooth and nail to defend everything he does, while attacking his enemies! But I don't even like him, really, I don't! Why would you think that I would?"

"I hate Nazis... but I'm going to save my real venom for the people who try to stop them! Nazis are terrible, but people who try to make life harder for them, those are the real bad guys!"

"I hate all the bad stuff I think Hillary and Obama did... but when Trump actually does those things, and even worse, I'm not going to hold him accountable but instead repeat fantasies about lesser evils Hillary and Obama did to try to return the focus to them, rather than the guy who's actually in office doing bad stuff! Even though I still don't like Trump, remember, and you stop saying I do, you mean people!"

And now we have, "I don't even like Kavanaugh, he's blah-blah-blah... but watch as I proceed to make an asshole-on-steroids of myself defending him! Don't care if he might have raped somebody, not even gonna entertain the thought, I still wanna side with the-guy-I-don't-actually-like."

Predictable as the sun coming up.

Whoever trained your lil' spaniel ass to wish-wash sure got their Milk Bones' worth. You got that reflex-action down, budreaux! I've never seen the like.

Good lord, you are just incapable of taking a stand for anything. You want to have strong opinions on things and yet still take zero responsibility for any of 'em. Typical Libertarian chickenshit, only backing candidates who you know will never win so you never actually have to have any skin in the game and can just sit on the sidelines and bitch, pretending to be "principled" while you have no principles at all because you never pony up when it's time to commit to anything. You remind me of an old hippie I knew on another board who'd never support anybody but super-far-left candidates that he knew would never win, so his "purity" would stay intact and he'd take no chances on ever having to be even the least bit accountable for anything. He never took a real stand, but my oh my would he scold those of us who did. Held us responsible for all the ills of the world for making an actual choice.

My god, people like you are so weak. You stand for nothing, you fall for everything, and you expect people not to see through you? What a drip. If there's a more spineless non-committal dishrag anywhere on the planet, you should hunt him down and kill him so you can be number one, 'cuz, damn, you're so close!


But it still cracks me up to hear leftists call him a judicial activist... lmao. Can they be less self-aware?


Oh, I know at least one person who's less self-aware. Find a mirror, you'll see him. Very Happy

If you don't think Kavanaugh's a judicial activist, you haven't checked his record, and you didn't pay attention to the crazy "it's all the Dems, Hillary's out to get me!" ass-babble during his job interview. Whatever else, those were enough to prove he's incapable of being an unbiased judge. Trusting him's like trusting Sean Hannity to give Nancy Pelosi a fair shake in something. Ain't 'bout to happen. Dude may get ramrodded through, but he'll be serving Trump and Trump only, not the American people. And he's never going to not have a cloud of suspicion around him. The smart, patriotic thing to do would be to withdraw this nominee and put up another. Trump's got two more years, and even if the Dems win the house and senate, they're not going to be able to sit out confirming somebody for two years. Trump only wants this guy because he's on the record as saying the rule of law doesn't apply to presidents... and Trump's expecting to need a vote like that when the Mueller probe's done.

View user profile

136 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/1/2018, 6:21 pm

zsomething wrote:Trump only wants this guy because he's on the record as saying the rule of law doesn't apply to presidents... and Trump's expecting to need a vote like that when the Mueller probe's done.

That's absolutely it, in one neat little nutshell.

View user profile

137 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/1/2018, 6:41 pm

Gawd you're a stooge. So wrapped up in leftist bias and vitriol that you're allergic to objectivity.

I know your type internet tough guy. So just fuck off before i call your bluff.

View user profile

138 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/1/2018, 7:58 pm

zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:It's just a political ploy for useful idiots. Resisting with a wedge issue to motivate the huddled masses. It's really a win/win for the leftist ruling class. If they could manufacture a way to disqualify this qualified judge... win. If they can't it can still motivate their underlings... win. Gawd they're easy.

Btw... we all lose if this tactic succeeds... and i don't really like kavanaugh that much. He's way too progressive with his support of govt authority. He's a defender of an unrestrained govt such as in the patriot act.


lol! Okay, I for-real almost hurt myself laughing when I read this.

God, what a wishy-washy, never-stands-for-anything nutless fuck you are.  This is becoming self-satire already.  Very Happy

Your whole act is "I don't really back anybody" while being partisan to the bone.   Do you actually believe this shit, or are we just supposed to buy it?

Every day it's stuff like:

"I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him, I think he's a clown... but I'm going to spend every waking minute for years arguing tooth and nail to defend everything he does, while attacking his enemies!   But I don't even like him, really, I don't!  Why would you think that I would?"

"I hate Nazis... but I'm going to save my real venom for the people who try to stop them!   Nazis are terrible, but people who try to make life harder for them, those are the real bad guys!"

"I hate all the bad stuff I think Hillary and Obama did... but when Trump actually does those things, and even worse, I'm not going to hold him accountable but instead repeat fantasies about lesser evils Hillary and Obama did to try to return the focus to them, rather than the guy who's actually in office doing bad stuff!   Even though I still don't like Trump, remember, and you stop saying I do, you mean people!"

And now we have, "I don't even like Kavanaugh, he's blah-blah-blah... but watch as I proceed to make an asshole-on-steroids of myself defending him!  Don't care if he might have raped somebody, not even gonna entertain the thought, I still wanna side with the-guy-I-don't-actually-like."  

Predictable as the sun coming up.

Whoever trained your lil' spaniel ass to wish-wash sure got their Milk Bones' worth.  You got that reflex-action down, budreaux!   I've never seen the like.

Good lord, you are just incapable of taking a stand for anything.   You want to have strong opinions on things and yet still take zero responsibility for any of 'em.   Typical Libertarian chickenshit, only backing candidates who you know will never win so you never actually have to have any skin in the game and can just sit on the sidelines and bitch, pretending to be "principled" while you have no principles at all  because you never pony up when it's time to commit to anything.   You remind me of an old hippie I knew on another board who'd never support anybody but super-far-left candidates that he knew would never win, so his "purity" would stay intact and he'd take no chances on ever having to be even the least bit accountable for anything.   He never took a real stand, but my oh my would he scold those of us who did.  Held us responsible for all the ills of the world for making an actual choice.

My god, people like you are so weak.    You stand for nothing, you fall for everything, and you expect people not to see through you?   What a drip.   If there's a more spineless non-committal dishrag anywhere on the planet, you should hunt him down and kill him so you can be number one, 'cuz, damn, you're so close!


But it still cracks me up to hear leftists call him a judicial activist... lmao. Can they be less self-aware?


Oh, I know at least one person who's less self-aware.   Find a mirror, you'll see him.   Very Happy

If you don't think Kavanaugh's a judicial activist, you haven't checked his record, and you didn't pay attention to the crazy "it's all the Dems, Hillary's out to get me!" ass-babble during his job interview.   Whatever else, those were enough to prove he's incapable of being an unbiased judge.  Trusting him's like trusting Sean Hannity to give Nancy Pelosi a fair shake in something.   Ain't 'bout to happen.  Dude may get ramrodded through, but he'll be serving Trump and Trump only, not the American people.  And he's never going to not have a cloud of suspicion around him.  The smart, patriotic thing to do would be to withdraw this nominee and put up another.   Trump's got two more years, and even if the Dems win the house and senate, they're not going to be able to sit out confirming somebody for two years.   Trump only wants this guy because he's on the record as saying the rule of law doesn't apply to presidents... and Trump's expecting to need a vote like that when the Mueller probe's done.

cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers

Perfectly stated.

View user profile

139 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 12:47 am

bigdog wrote:
zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:It's just a political ploy for useful idiots. Resisting with a wedge issue to motivate the huddled masses. It's really a win/win for the leftist ruling class. If they could manufacture a way to disqualify this qualified judge... win. If they can't it can still motivate their underlings... win. Gawd they're easy.

Btw... we all lose if this tactic succeeds... and i don't really like kavanaugh that much. He's way too progressive with his support of govt authority. He's a defender of an unrestrained govt such as in the patriot act.


lol! Okay, I for-real almost hurt myself laughing when I read this.

God, what a wishy-washy, never-stands-for-anything nutless fuck you are.  This is becoming self-satire already.  Very Happy

Your whole act is "I don't really back anybody" while being partisan to the bone.   Do you actually believe this shit, or are we just supposed to buy it?

Every day it's stuff like:

"I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him, I think he's a clown... but I'm going to spend every waking minute for years arguing tooth and nail to defend everything he does, while attacking his enemies!   But I don't even like him, really, I don't!  Why would you think that I would?"

"I hate Nazis... but I'm going to save my real venom for the people who try to stop them!   Nazis are terrible, but people who try to make life harder for them, those are the real bad guys!"

"I hate all the bad stuff I think Hillary and Obama did... but when Trump actually does those things, and even worse, I'm not going to hold him accountable but instead repeat fantasies about lesser evils Hillary and Obama did to try to return the focus to them, rather than the guy who's actually in office doing bad stuff!   Even though I still don't like Trump, remember, and you stop saying I do, you mean people!"

And now we have, "I don't even like Kavanaugh, he's blah-blah-blah... but watch as I proceed to make an asshole-on-steroids of myself defending him!  Don't care if he might have raped somebody, not even gonna entertain the thought, I still wanna side with the-guy-I-don't-actually-like."  

Predictable as the sun coming up.

Whoever trained your lil' spaniel ass to wish-wash sure got their Milk Bones' worth.  You got that reflex-action down, budreaux!   I've never seen the like.

Good lord, you are just incapable of taking a stand for anything.   You want to have strong opinions on things and yet still take zero responsibility for any of 'em.   Typical Libertarian chickenshit, only backing candidates who you know will never win so you never actually have to have any skin in the game and can just sit on the sidelines and bitch, pretending to be "principled" while you have no principles at all  because you never pony up when it's time to commit to anything.   You remind me of an old hippie I knew on another board who'd never support anybody but super-far-left candidates that he knew would never win, so his "purity" would stay intact and he'd take no chances on ever having to be even the least bit accountable for anything.   He never took a real stand, but my oh my would he scold those of us who did.  Held us responsible for all the ills of the world for making an actual choice.

My god, people like you are so weak.    You stand for nothing, you fall for everything, and you expect people not to see through you?   What a drip.   If there's a more spineless non-committal dishrag anywhere on the planet, you should hunt him down and kill him so you can be number one, 'cuz, damn, you're so close!


But it still cracks me up to hear leftists call him a judicial activist... lmao. Can they be less self-aware?


Oh, I know at least one person who's less self-aware.   Find a mirror, you'll see him.   Very Happy

If you don't think Kavanaugh's a judicial activist, you haven't checked his record, and you didn't pay attention to the crazy "it's all the Dems, Hillary's out to get me!" ass-babble during his job interview.   Whatever else, those were enough to prove he's incapable of being an unbiased judge.  Trusting him's like trusting Sean Hannity to give Nancy Pelosi a fair shake in something.   Ain't 'bout to happen.  Dude may get ramrodded through, but he'll be serving Trump and Trump only, not the American people.  And he's never going to not have a cloud of suspicion around him.  The smart, patriotic thing to do would be to withdraw this nominee and put up another.   Trump's got two more years, and even if the Dems win the house and senate, they're not going to be able to sit out confirming somebody for two years.   Trump only wants this guy because he's on the record as saying the rule of law doesn't apply to presidents... and Trump's expecting to need a vote like that when the Mueller probe's done.

cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers cheers

Perfectly stated.






View user profile

140 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 8:47 am

PkrBum wrote:Gawd you're a stooge. So wrapped up in leftist bias and vitriol that you're allergic to objectivity.

I know your type internet tough guy. So just fuck off before i call your bluff.

Oh please call my bluff. Go ahead. Smile

View user profile

141 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 8:59 am

zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Gawd you're a stooge. So wrapped up in leftist bias and vitriol that you're allergic to objectivity.

I know your type internet tough guy. So just fuck off before i call your bluff.

Oh please call my bluff.  Go ahead.  Smile





Watch out, he might hit you with one of his tennis balls. lol! bounce

View user profile

142 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 10:17 am

Oh no......PK is not going to get elected to the Michigan Library board.....he acted like a male and Zsomething is withdrawing from the mayoral race because he acted like a male........I suggest that the new test for all males who want to be a supreme court justice is did they subject themselves to voluntary chemical castration, and before each court session they must blow to determine BAC.

However, by admission the Notorious RBG is going to governmental functions drunk, not thirty five years ago, but right now......this was wrong when done to Obama, and it is wrong to do the same to this judge. Civility has left the building with Andy, and all these barnies in their hissy fit really has become a source of humor for me.

View user profile

143 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 5:11 pm


View user profile

144 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 6:44 pm

2seaoat wrote:I suggest that the new test for all males who want to be a supreme court justice is did they subject themselves to voluntary chemical castration...  

I have a feeling those two shrieking harpies who confronted Flake in the elevator aren't going to be satisfied with mere CHEMICAL castration.

View user profile

145 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/2/2018, 7:12 pm

Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I suggest that the new test for all males who want to be a supreme court justice is did they subject themselves to voluntary chemical castration...  

I have a feeling those two shrieking harpies who confronted Flake in the elevator aren't going to be satisfied with mere CHEMICAL castration.





Who Cares? All men who vote republican are born eunuchs.




View user profile

146 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/3/2018, 2:54 am

2seaoat wrote: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.

How does the newspaper getting sued by somebody else vindicate you ten years later?

View user profile

147 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/3/2018, 3:26 am

Vikingwoman wrote:
2seaoat wrote: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.

How does the newspaper getting sued by somebody else vindicate you ten years later?




What's up with chickenshit's dad collecting calendars? Does the old fart still save his calendars like sonny boy does. I hope somebody makes a lot of money producing Kavanaugh Calendars in time for Christmas. Somebody will.

View user profile

148 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/3/2018, 1:36 pm

How does the newspaper getting sued by somebody else vindicate you ten years later?


I was already vindicated from the false accusations by the Doctor who had submitted his report into evidence. He worked in the County mental health assessment office. It took three days, record time for the state to declare the accusations were baseless, and untruthful. However, any person in America can make a false accusation against a person, but it is really fun to go to your daughter's saturday morning basketball game and pick up a paper sitting in the stands seeing your face and the lead story above the crease, which is one big lie.

The only thing good about all the newspapers, after the lie was disclosed, they all gave me plenty of space above the crease to talk about false accusations and how cowardly newspapers can discourage good candidates from running with sloppy journalism. They ran every word of my response in three major newspapers, so that was fair. The reporter who ran the story apologized and said his editors forced him to run a story and he was very uncomfortable, but we both knew one of the candidates I was running against had a spouse who was a developer and ran major ads in that newspaper. It saved me 20k on media, as I simply knew my candidacy had been destroyed by this blatant lie, and ran no more ads. The person who filed a lie with a state agency was found guilty of a felony shortly after for writing fake scripts for painkillers. My wife will tell you more after I pass, but I saved a little girl's life keeping this addict away from her child, and she grew up in the custody of her father, and step mother, and went on to be an honor student, and a great soccer player. I did my job and protected the child, and in the process became a target. So I understand completely what is being done to the judge.

View user profile

149 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/3/2018, 1:42 pm

PkrBum wrote:Gawd you're a stooge. So wrapped up in leftist bias and vitriol that you're allergic to objectivity.

I know your type internet tough guy. So just fuck off before i call your bluff.

View user profile

150 Re: Oh, Seaoat, you there? on 10/4/2018, 10:34 am

Please cue the whine.............

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 7]

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

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