Wingnutties out of control!

[Leo Lyons]

"Republican activist.... called President Obama a “Fucking MUSLIM Nigger”....."

But it's all okay, he says, "he’s “absolutely not” a racist"

Can Blacks be racist? I've heard Black people call him that.

[Whack9]

Anybody can be racist, like the guy mentioned in billy.pilgrims article.

[Whack9]

They just can't keep their racism from slipping out in public, or it could be they don't understand that Twitter is public.

In desantis supporters latest macaca moment

POLITICO: New racial controversy batters DeSantis.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/ ... ues-830726


"Republican activist who donated more than $20,000 to Ron DeSantis and lined up a speech for him at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club called President Obama a “Fucking MUSLIM Nigger” on Twitter"

But it's all okay, he says, "he’s “absolutely not” a racist"

The ol' "I was just joking guys, stop taking things so seriously" defense.

[Vrede too]

The ol' "I was just joking guys, stop taking things so seriously" defense.

"Besides, some of my best friends are fucking MUSLIM niggers."

Initially, Alembik said he didn’t believe he wrote that but then, after reviewing the tweet, said that “when I write anything inflammatory, it’s because I’m seriously pissed off. I’m an emotional human being. Do I have a filter on what I say? In public, yes. Would I use that word in public? No. This is Twitter.”

[Leo Lyons]

I’m an emotional human being. Do I have a filter on what I say? In public, yes. Would I use that word in public? No. This is Twitter.”

He could even be president; he's proficient in Twitter.

[Whack9]

The ol' "I was just joking guys, stop taking things so seriously" defense.

"Besides, some of my best friends are fucking MUSLIM niggers."

Initially, Alembik said he didn’t believe he wrote that but then, after reviewing the tweet, said that “when I write anything inflammatory, it’s because I’m seriously pissed off. I’m an emotional human being. Do I have a filter on what I say? In public, yes. Would I use that word in public? No. This is Twitter.”

We're human. We all get angry at times. Sometimes in the heat of the moment we may say some mean things. However, it's no secret that the n-word is an incredibly charged word to say. You'd have to have been living in an underground bunker cut off from the outside world since 1950 to not know this. No way would someone in the heat of the moment say this without understanding the repurcussions. To make matters worse, it wasn't even verbally said. It was typed into twitter and submitted.

[Leo Lyons]

We're human. We all get angry at times. Sometimes in the heat of the moment we may say some mean things.
No way would someone in the heat of the moment say this without understanding the repurcussions. To make matters worse, it wasn't even verbally said. It was typed into twitter and submitted.

Saying it in a Twitter tweet (damn twits!) makes it perfectly OK. Ask the Donald; he'll tell you.
I learned early in my professional career not to put labels on people, but as you said above, "We're human. We all get angry at times." That's a fate we cannot escape; no matter how refined we are.

[Vrede too]

petesouza
Verified
128,887 likes

Attention Mr. Grassley, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Corker, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. 46 minus 1: this is Mr. Merrick Garland. Remember him. You held his Supreme Court nomination open for 293 days without a single hearing. During those 293 days, no one came forward with a shred of evidence about anything that would disqualify him. You just didn’t schedule a hearing or vote for purely political reasons. There is now a credible attempted rape allegation against your Court nominee. For a lifetime appointment. Whose nomination has been open only for 71 days. And your plan is to rush a vote on his nomination without an FBI investigation into a sexual assault he may have committed? Because 46 minus 1 says about the FBI, “this is not their thing.” The “I” in FBI stands for “investigation.” Even I (and everyone that works at the White House) had two FBI investigations into my background as the White House photographer, though I had never committed a crime. So you don’t want the FBI to investigate someone for the Supreme Court about a credible attempted rape allegation? Please explain.

Tell Sen. Grassley: No vote on Brett Kavanaugh



The petition to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley reads:

"Stop trying to jam through Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation despite the sexual assault allegations against him. Cancel the Senate Judiciary Committee vote now."

[Leo Lyons]

petesouza

"....There is now a credible attempted rape allegation against your Court nominee. For a lifetime appointment... And your plan is to rush a vote on his nomination without an FBI investigation into a sexual assault he may have committed?
"Credible?" ONE person, drunk at the time, steps forward from 30+ years ago accusing someone of a sexual assault, and that's deemed "credible?" Also it's an "attempted rape allegation" Also, key words "he may have committed"

The “I” in FBI stands for “investigation.” Even I (and everyone that works at the White House) had two FBI investigations into my background as the White House photographer, though I had never committed a crime. So you don’t want the FBI to investigate someone for the Supreme Court about a credible attempted rape allegation? Please explain.

Tell Sen. Grassley: No vote on Brett Kavanaugh
"Stop trying to jam through Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation despite the sexual assault allegations against him. Cancel the Senate Judiciary Committee vote now."

I don't know if Kavanaugh's guilty or not; and I'm believing his accuser doesn't know either; but the liberal Dems camp is taking ONE person's story and running screeching across the land with it. I know nothing about him except for what I've read or heard the last few weeks; I do know he appears to be a person capable of upholding the office he's been selected to serve. That's all; I'm neither for him or against him.

Since one person, who was drunk at the time, is the accuser, I personally have to see the irony in this accusation, which is this: In early July, POTUS nominates a man that is of his political party; the opposing party goes apeshit because they want someone from their party, and this man has made some unpopular judicial decisions in the past that pissed off their party's elite. Dems desperately begin scrounging for someone who will step forward with ANYTHING that will either discredit him or delay the nomination process; which results in a "credible source" writing a letter to a ranking Dem accusing the nominee of attempted rape...A ranking Dem (the "credible source's" go-to?) receives the letter, but sits on it until it's evident which way the nomination process is going. Things are looking bad for the Dems, suddenly an accusation, in the form of a letter to a ranking Dem, appears out of the blue bearing the news of an attempted rape .

An allegation is just that; an allegation. I recall Vrede saying once he was a health professional; what, I don't recall; but lets use a scenario here using Vrede as the subject because he is the most vocal against this nomination for SCOTUS.

Vrede, suppose it had been announced that you had been selected by a major health care organization or a major hospital board to be head of medical operations, and a vote was to be taken to confirm you, pending a review of your qualifications. Somebody, where you're currently employed doesn't like you or is envious that you were selected, and lodges an attempted sexual assault charge that happened 20-30 years ago against you; or they con a former patient to write a letter accusing you of fondling her while under her care....

That's an "allegation", correct? You're completely innocent until proven otherwise, correct? Would it be proper (or fair) for the board to dismiss your intended promotion based on an allegation? Also if the allegations happened 20-30 years ago and it wasn't reported to authorities, how are the authorities going to come up with evidential proof that wasn't there to begin with?

[O Really]

All nicely logical, Leo - except that's not the way harassment/assault allegations actually go. First, there are numerous differences in sex-oriented offenses and other offenses, for example, theft. If somebody steals your stuff, you're not embarassed; you're mad. And you'll tell anybody around, report it to the police, yada. And everybody likely believes you. But if, for example, you're date-raped, you are embarassed, you know many won't believe you, and you'll be subject to further abuse during the questioning. So unless you've had serious injury, you might just let it go.

Secondly, responses to sex-oriented offenses are different from other offenses. If Sally reports that Jack stole her phone, and Jack is found with the phone but says he didn't steal it - only borrowed it, they'll ask Sally if she lent it to Jack. She'll say no, and Jack will be in trouble. But if Sally reports that Jack groped her breast and Jack says no, it was accidental, then say say, "oh well, misunderstanding...he/she said...nothing to see here."

And, there really isn't enough money around to pay somebody like Blasey Ford to totally ruin her life over something that never happened. I've investigated a lot of employment-based harassment and assault claims and I've never found one where the claimant actually got to the point of going through the complaint process on a made up story. Never. Not one. Oh sure, you get people saying "I'll fix you - I'll just claim harassment" and you do have real misunderstandings, different memories, different interpretations of the same facts, different remembered facts and circumstances. But never have I found that "nothing" happened.

Anyway, while it's likely Kavenaugh did do what she claims, or something similar - probably more than once, the value out of this might be to quash his nomination, but if not, we've still got the Senate Republicans up there losing practically every female in the country. Life is good.

[billy.pilgrim]

And there is a witness that the republicans don't want to talk to.

So very different from the republicans attack on Franken for pretending to touch a sleeping stripper.

[Vrede too]

Apparently, some former LEOs side with our criminal, sexual assaulting POSPOTUS rather than the experts, other LEOs.

Police chief forced to tell Trump it is 'a fact' sex crimes go underreported as president demands Kavanaugh assault evidence

[Leo Lyons]

Apparently, some former LEOs side with our criminal, sexual assaulting POSPOTUS rather than the experts, other LEOs.
Some former LEOs might, this one doesn't.
Biting your tongue, aren't you? ha!

Police chief forced to tell Trump it is 'a fact' sex crimes go underreported as president demands Kavanaugh assault evidence

"Police chief forced...." A story from the UK.

[Leo Lyons]

All nicely logical, Leo,
Thanks. Regardless "how it works", I'm thinking surely a statue of limitations comes into play somewhere? The timing of this allegation is suspect? Kavanaugh is not some rookie judge who just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

And, there really isn't enough money around to pay somebody like Blasey Ford to totally ruin her life over something that never happened.
Well, I don't know her mindset; neither do you. The old adage "money talks" comes to mind, especially if there's enough of it. Money seems to transform people into something totally unexpected.


I've investigated a lot of employment-based harassment and assault claims and I've never found one where the claimant actually got to the point of going through the complaint process on a made up story. Never. Not one. Oh sure, you get people saying "I'll fix you - I'll just claim harassment" and you do have real misunderstandings, different memories, different interpretations of the same facts, different remembered facts and circumstances. But never have I found that "nothing" happened.
Good scenario; however Ms. Ford's (and the Dem's) insistence the FBI investigate the claim lends more credence to my suspicions. As I said, the FBI would be stalled investigating an incident that was never reported to law enforcement; and stalling the nomination as long as possible is what the Dems are working to accomplish.

Anyway, while it's likely Kavenaugh did do what she claims, or something similar-probably more than once, the value out of this might be to quash his nomination, but if not, we've still got the Senate Republicans up there losing practically every female in the country. Life is good.
And the Dems are completely innocent?

[billy.pilgrim]

And there is a witness that the republicans and leo don't want the FBI to talk to.


Proving that it happened doesn't have anything to do with prosecution, but everything to do with ol Bret's character

[Leo Lyons]

And there is a witness that the republicans and leo don't want the FBI to talk to.
Who? I don't know either?

Proving that it happened doesn't have anything to do with prosecution, but everything to do with ol Bret's character
As long as he's smeared, innocent or guilty; right?

[O Really]

As long as he's smeared, innocent or guilty; right?

You say that like it's a bad thing.
None of this is really about Kavenaugh - it's about Trump and also retribution for the stolen Garland seat. Kavenaugh is just the latest to have his life screwed over by his association with Trump.

[billy.pilgrim]

And there is a witness that the republicans and leo don't want the FBI to talk to.
Who? I don't know either?

Proving that it happened doesn't have anything to do with prosecution, but everything to do with ol Bret's character
As long as he's smeared, innocent or guilty; right?

Really, do you cover your ears and eyes during the news.

There were two of them who pushed her into the room. His bud stood there and watched before jumping on her too.

So strange how you pretend to not know basic facts about everything you discuss here. I guess it does make the strawmen easier to destroy.

[O Really]

I'm not sure Leo follows news from any source. He's pretty well convinced that there's no difference in a jaywalker and a mugger since both violated the law.

[billy.pilgrim]

I'm not sure Leo follows news from any source. He's pretty well convinced that there's no difference in a jaywalker and a mugger since both violated the law.

I think he's more interested in who violates the law.