Sometimes I cant remember if I was assaulted in a bus in Maine or in Philmont. What are you getting at?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869271)

You guys are kind of being asses about this.

What new details say her memory is imperiled?

I know she couldn't remember what house it was at exactly but she recalled the lay of the room and the bathroom etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869294)

https://imgur.com/a/NDYaEa1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869388)

And youre an asshole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869397)

https://imgur.com/a/NDYaEa1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869393)

Tell me what proof there is that anything she said is accurate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869363)

Got it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869369)

We cannot possibly know what happened 30 years ago therefore we should ASSUME IT HAPPENED? The Bible has nothing to do with the fact that in America people are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The burden is on her, not him. She has yet to prove that anything she said is true.

How about we start saying you watch child porn? Go ahead a prove you don't. Burden's on you, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869394)

You make a lot of low IQ comments, but this takes the cake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869406)

Are you a Christian?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869317)

I thought your sticking point before was that she actually wore a bathing suit under her clothes--or that she remembered this but not something else, etc. which arguably would seem to be a relevant detail of recollection IF SHE WAS GETTING FELT UP.

you people are pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869385)

Give me a fucking break, you're the one who's pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869442)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869510)

THAT verifiable info.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36870150)

But lets be clear: testimony alone can be enough to sink or win a case in a courtoom.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869389)

Are conturds then going to say "Who can possibly say what happened 30 plus years ago?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869304)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869312)

Here--I'll post something I've said elsewhere:

Just a thought on Kavanaugh--I'll wade into the depths for a moment or two.

Part 1:

When I tell people that the abortion question is really a matter of weighing the relative rights of women vs the rights of the unborn, I get a lot of kickback from pro-life friends.

They typically start off by saying that life is sacred, and the fetus should always be protected, absolutely. Usually, after a lot of effort, we get to an acknowledgment that the pregnant woman usually has some rights in the matter too, although, for the pro-lifers, those rights may be smaller than the rights the "right to choose" group would afford. I emphasize that it's neither all one nor all the other—there are scales at work in this, as in most moral questions in the real world.

I then suggest to the pro-lifer, assuming they haven't stormed off by then, that "right to choose" is really about keeping women's rights in the matter valued at about where they are. Trickier still, I also suggest that modernity depends on some of the rights women have under current law on the subject—you can’t have many of the constituent parts of the feminist movement if abortion were outlawed or criminalized. And if you can’t have those constituent parts of the feminist movement, you can’t have our current standard of living, our current range of opportunities for all, our current levels of maximizing available talent, etc. (Yes, there are downsides to feminism but that’s a whole different thing!) Usually we come to some mutual appreciation, and the pro-lifer concedes that it IS a balancing scale, and will say simply that the settings need to be significantly reset. That’s your opinion. Fine.

Part 2:

Now comes Kavanaugh, a judge who is intent on resetting those scales. Part of what this means, by its nature, is fewer rights for women in the matter. Also, perhaps a rejection of those aspects of modernity we all more or less generally are in favor of.

Pro-life friends are big on two things: a) Ford must be lying. (hmm). b) It happened so long ago, when they were different people-- who cares. I believe both of these beliefs are rooted in the above analysis—that pro-lifers essentially place less value on women than those who believe in the right to choose. I know this will get some blowback.

As for a) Ford must be lying—I don’t think so. The reason I don’t think so is because if Kavanaugh is a pro-lifer, I would be concerned about his view of women generally—I would be concerned that to him on some level *they are objects in some respect, or that some sort of assault may be justified (with a hand over a mouth to prevent protest!)* But of course, this belief about him is only an intuition (or a rationally considered prejudice, if you like), and I would want to hear what everyone says in testimony.

As for b), what was alleged was not “boys will be boys”—you don’t do what he did, and manifest an intent to, well, rape, by covering the girl’s mouth—and call that “boys will be boys.” Not in a million years would anyone on my FB feed do such a thing—not at 17, not at 25, not ever. Literally, a girl is protesting, and he—a boy then, a judge now—doesn’t want her to speak. Because we know it’s wrong. If it’s true, it speaks to something fundamentally flawed about this judge, something that may be mitigated over time and with experience, but doesn’t altogther go away, that on some level women are objects or less important than men, and I would question whether he should get that appointment he seeks.

***

and

I didnt explicitly say what I meant. What I meant is that I think there is some degree of correlation between being pro-life and seeing women as objects, vessels, what have you. This correlation makes me think Ford isn't lying when she says that Kavanaugh didn't care to hear her protests when he assaulted her (allegedly). Unfair? Maybe. But it's an intuition, and as I said, I reserve judgment until I hear what they have to say.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869364)

I don’t give a fuck about abortion as an issue, either way. But her story and behavior stinks to high heaven.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869390)

Whats this about not liking planes please? that's new to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869504)

link to this?

Link to anything that would contradict her fear of flying?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36870121)

It is striking how Christians have selective reasoning ability on this subject however.

Consider that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4084810&forum_id=2#36869411)