Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Captain Cranks

Brett Kavanaugh

Regarding BK's testimony on Thursday  

237 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I think I'm going to be gay today. Who wants to help pack my picnic basket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 6:44 PM, parasaurolophus said:

Who is Mollie Hemingway? Anybody familiar with her? 

Yes, Hemingway is a full on Trumper who writes for the Federalist, which I think is an outgrowth of the group that has been vetting and proposing USSC picks for Trump. I don't think her points are bad on this but the Federalist has sadly become Breitbart Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, squistion said:

And not ever replicated anywhere else by a larger study or you would have linked that instead of pointing to this obvious outlier as the last word. To say one single study of 156 kids definitely proves that most people's sexual orientation is not hard wired is absurd, but from you not surprising.

Almost every LGBT person I have ever met have said they were born that way. Yes there are exceptions but you have to look hard to find them. If sexual orientation was easily changeable as you insist,, then gay conversion therapy would be a  runaway success, but it is not, it has a dismal track record.

you're doing this completely wrong...like completely completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dozer said:

I think I'm going to be gay today. Who wants to help pack my picnic basket?

Think Yogi Bear would be game for both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yes, Hemingway is a full on Trumper who writes for the Federalist, which I think is an outgrowth of the group that has been vetting and proposing USSC picks for Trump. I don't think her points are bad on this but the Federalist has sadly become Breitbart Jr.

Reading her feed it seemed to certainly all flow one way. Everything she has said regarding this has been solid though as i have always been able to find it elsewhere too.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 6:44 PM, parasaurolophus said:

Also wtf is with this open letter to Keyser?  

This is really something considering it came from the courts editor for the Daily Caller. I had to keep checking to be sure it was the DC, kind of incredible they let it go.

Her name is Sara Corcoran and apparently she went to school with Ford and Keyser:

Daily Caller - OPINION: I Believe Kavanaugh’s Accuser

Quote

 

...Though several years ahead of my class, Ford also went to my high school, Holton Arms. Located a few miles outside Washington, D.C., Holton-Arms is an all-girls school that encouraged excellence in intellect and a healthy diet of AP courses as the rule, not the exception. 

Though long on academics, many Holton girls also found a way to have a very good time — author included. There were the wild house parties in Kalorama, chugging Milwaukee’s Best in Battery Kemble Park, temporarily borrowing my best friend’s mum’s car without a proper license, hurling eggs at moving vehicles, and decorating houses with squeezable Charmin. We were wild at heart and so were the boys we kept company with.

As I lived in Washington, D.C., during high school (more an exception as it required a longer commute) my motley crew rarely spent time with the boys of Georgetown Prep.  It was St. Alban’s Episcopal High School and occasionally Landon (where George Huguely Jr. went to school) but, of course, I knew boys from Kavanaugh’s alma mater.

Though I was never the victim of sexual assault in high school or university, I have befriended several women who were. The boys of that generation in private schools had this strange pattern of attacking and then maligning those they had assaulted or blaming their conduct on the victim.

I am still perplexed by this manifestation of guilt disguised as violence and believe every single story I was told over the years. Most girls rarely confronted their attackers, instead sharing the shame with friends or counselors along the way as they dealt with their traumatic experiences. ...

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Reading her feed it seemed to certainly all flow one way. Everything she has said regarding this has been solid though as i have always been able to find it elsewhere too.

One thing I saw her do was point back to the actual passage in the book that was published about the Ramirez incident, which I think is helpful to understanding the NYT report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dozer said:

I think I'm going to be gay today. Who wants to help pack my picnic basket?

See you on Grinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jon_mx said:

There are two theories.  The politically correct theory, which has very little scientific support although widely accepted, that sexuality is hard wired and does not change.  Or the reality, that sexuality may has some genetic component but is driven by a combination of things and is fluid and changes with experience and other environmental influences. 

I think there's third way to chat about this.  The viewpoint for many who understand the research and history of sexual attraction is that sexuality exists on a spectrum.  Some people would never be attracted to the opposite sex, some never would be attracted to the same sex, and most people fall in between, with some degree of fluidity that is probably susceptible to shifting over time.

Whether or not a man can be attracted to men is one thing - that's probably not going to change over the course of your life.  And the 'gay gene' research you discussed upthread bears that out - there appears to be a general hardwired "propensity for having same sex experiences in general' genetic component.  But as to how prevalent that is in that person's life, that appears to be a sliding scale.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dozer said:

I think I'm going to be gay today. Who wants to help pack my picnic basket?

I was queer with my friends. Sometimes I was too queer. I liked being queer. I still like being queer. I was queer. I am queer. You've probably been queer. Do you like being queer? Nothing like hangin out and being queer with some friends. Which I gladly do, which I fully embrace.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think there's third way to chat about this.  The viewpoint for many who understand the research and history of sexual attraction is that sexuality exists on a spectrum.  Some people would never be attracted to the opposite sex, some never would be attracted to the same sex, and most people fall in between, with some degree of fluidity that is probably susceptible to shifting over time.

Whether or not a man can be attracted to men is one thing - that's probably not going to change over the course of your life.  And the 'gay gene' research you discussed upthread bears that out - there appears to be a general hardwired "propensity for having same sex experiences in general' genetic component.  But as to how prevalent that is in that person's life, that appears to be a sliding scale.  

I wandered in way late to the debate, offered an opinion that went unremarked upon, but this is what I was trying to say, only better said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I like ABBA. 

But on the other hand, you voted for Romney. Like I said, it’s a sliding scale. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jon_mx said:

How about a 2006 study (abstract below)which shows the fluidity of sexuality from youth into adulthood.  Only 57 percent of gays and lesbians did not change.  While most do remain the same identity there are still millions who don't.  Hardly rare by any stretch.  

 

A longitudinal report of 156 gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths examined changes in sexual identity over time. Fifty-seven percent of the youths remained consistently self-identified as gay/lesbian, 18% transited from bisexual to gay/lesbian, and 15% consistently identified as bisexual over time. Although youths who consistently identified as gay/lesbian did not differ from other youths on time since experiencing sexual developmental milestones, they reported current sexual orientation and sexual behaviors that were more same-sex centered and they scored higher on aspects of the identity integration process (e.g., more certain, comfortable, and accepting of their same-sex sexuality, more involved in gay-related social activities, more possessing of positive attitudes toward homosexuality, and more comfortable with others knowing about their sexuality) than youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity and youths who consistently identified as bisexual. Contrary to the hypothesis that females are more sexually fluid than males, female youths were less likely to change identities than male youths. The finding that youths who transited to a gay/lesbian identity differed from consistently gay/lesbian youths suggests that identity integration continues after the adoption of a gay/lesbian sexual identity.

I think you are reading the numbers incorrectly. They don’t say 57% stuck to their initial gay self-identity, and therefore 43% did not. 

They say that 57% of the sample self identified as gay both initially and 6 months later. Another 15% self identified as bisexual both initially and 6 months later. And 18% self-identified as bisexual initially but gay 6 months later. 

So a total of 72% stuck with their self-identification, while another 18% said bisexual at first and gay six months later. Given that the sample was 156 youths (aged 14-21, mean age 18, drawn primarily from city youth LGTBQ organizations) I don’t think the change in self-id from bisexual to gay should be seen as anything more than than young gay kids knowing themselves better and/or being more comfortable answering questions 6 months later. 

The 72% who stayed consistent plus the 18% who changed self-identification from bi-sexual to gay totals 90%. 

That leaves only 10% (15 or 16 kids) who started self-identified as gay or bisexual and changed to bisexual or straight. Again, with a mean age of 18, I’m not convinced that any conclusions can be drawn about changes in the kids’ “true” sexuality, as opposed to conclusions about changes in how they self-identify and answer poll questions 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, randall146 said:

I think you are reading the numbers incorrectly. They don’t say 57% stuck to their initial gay self-identity, and therefore 43% did not. 

They say that 57% of the sample self identified as gay both initially and 6 months later. Another 15% self identified as bisexual both initially and 6 months later. And 18% self-identified as bisexual initially but gay 6 months later. 

So a total of 72% stuck with their self-identification, while another 18% said bisexual at first and gay six months later. Given that the sample was 156 youths (aged 14-21, mean age 18, drawn primarily from city youth LGTBQ organizations) I don’t think the change in self-id from bisexual to gay should be seen as anything more than than young gay kids knowing themselves better and/or being more comfortable answering questions 6 months later. 

The 72% who stayed consistent plus the 18% who changed self-identification from bi-sexual to gay totals 90%. 

That leaves only 10% (15 or 16 kids) who started self-identified as gay or bisexual and changed to bisexual or straight. Again, with a mean age of 18, I’m not convinced that any conclusions can be drawn about changes in the kids’ “true” sexuality, as opposed to conclusions about changes in how they self-identify and answer poll questions 

If self-identification is not used, what else is there?  But regardless, since they are only talking about a 6-month period, that is actually a lot of changing for that short of time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gone a while.  Why are we talking gay in the Kavanaugh thread?  Did something gay happen? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I was gone a while.  Why are we talking gay in the Kavanaugh thread?  Did something gay happen? 

No, just some friends pushing a guy’s penis around at a party while drunk.  Why?

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I was gone a while.  Why are we talking gay in the Kavanaugh thread?  Did something gay happen? 

Tim started it by asking a gay question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

Tim started it by asking a gay question

And it went off the rails when someone compared it to cancer

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

And it went off the rails when someone compared it to cancer

Then it all got deleted for some reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

Did it really?

Yep.  All that discussion is gone.  Not sure why as I didn’t think anyone went over the line, you answered questions and didn’t seem offended.  While not 100% on topic what thread here ever is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Yep.  All that discussion is gone.  Not sure why as I didn’t think anyone went over the line, you answered questions and didn’t seem offended.  While not 100% on topic what thread here ever is.  

Perhaps one of the gay people here took offense to being told they have a mental illness.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Perhaps one of the gay people here took offense to being told they have a mental illness.

That would make sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sweet J said:

I was gone a while.  Why are we talking gay in the Kavanaugh thread?  Did something gay happen? 

We talk about anything and everything in this thread except for Kavanaugh's disqualifying temperament, disrespect for Congress and his mysterious loan forgiveness program.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We talk about anything and everything in this thread except for Kavanaugh's disqualifying temperament, disrespect for Congress and his mysterious loan forgiveness program.

His temperament is just fine and he is a distinguished judge.  Congress deserves to be disrespected.  And yet another bogus left-wing innuendo.  These have all been covered on this forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

His temperament is just fine and he is a distinguished judge.  Congress deserves to be disrespected.  And yet another bogus left-wing innuendo.  These have all been covered on this forum.  

Did you watch another hearing than the rest of us?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Did you watch another hearing than the rest of us?

He obviously did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Did you watch another hearing than the rest of us?

Yes I would like to see his link for the loan forgiveness program that only applies to Kavanaugh.  Maybe I missed it but haven't seen the name behind the $$ on that one yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

His temperament is just fine and he is a distinguished judge.  Congress deserves to be disrespected.  And yet another bogus left-wing innuendo.  These have all been covered on this forum.  

Sorry, I expect more out of my SC justices than the 12 year old mentality that was displayed that day :shrug:

And I was direct, blunt and to the point....nothing innuendo about it.  Telling that you label it "left wing" though....wish we could have old jon_mx back

 

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

We talk about anything and everything in this thread except for Kavanaugh's disqualifying temperament, disrespect for Congress and his mysterious loan forgiveness program.

Can you elaborate here? 

I know there is a lot of talk about his mortgage, the CC membership, and the credit card debt, but I dont really understand it. If I follow his judicial disclosures year to year, I dont see these things stand out. I have only been able to find one recent disclosure that has net worth. 

But In 2015(filed 2016) i see Three debts two with code J for CC and one for Thrift savings(i assume this is like a 401k loan?) with a K.

2016- four debts with code K. 

2017- One debt with code J.

2017-mid 2018 with net worth nominee disc.- Shows just the thrift savings plan liability, but then in the net worth statement shows that they owe 815k in real estate mortgages. So it seems like maybe you dont list a mortgage on the liabilities if you have equity in the home? But I don't know will try and look up some other judges. 

Where is the other debt info coming from? Are there some other documents out there? Do we know how much cash on hand he had year to year from somewhere else?

You have brought this up now a couple times in this thread, so i assume you probably know where to find the docs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dickies said:

Did you watch another hearing than the rest of us?

No.  I watched the same one.  I have a friend who worked with Kavanaugh for years and has a much better insight into his temperament than what happened at the democratic circus show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Sorry, I expect more out of my SC justices than the 12 year old mentality that was displayed that day :shrug:

And I was direct, blunt and to the point....nothing innuendo about it.  Telling that you label it "left wing" though....wish we could have old jon_mx back

 

 

His temperament was bad, no doubt. Especially to legitimate questions from Congress. You'd think he'd have a little respect for them.

But the other worrisome part was how hyper-partisan he was in his monologue and then in his answers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

No.  I watched the same one.  I have a friend who worked with Kavanaugh for years and has a much better insight into his temperament than what happened at the democratic circus show.

I suspect that you're right.  I think his belligerence and hyper-partisanship during the hearing was mostly an act - a performance he gave for an audience of one.  Following his interview when he was calm, measured, reasonable and empathetic, the man who appointed him was reportedly very critical.  My guess is that Kavanaugh is more like the guy in the interview than the guy in the hearing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I suspect that you're right.  I think his belligerence and hyper-partisanship during the hearing was mostly an act - a performance he gave for an audience of one.  Following his interview when he was calm, measured, reasonable and empathetic, the man who appointed him was reportedly very critical.  My guess is that Kavanaugh is more like the guy in the interview than the guy in the hearing.

Still weird though. I mean he said things and did things in a manner that any decent attorney would advise a client not to. He had to have known some colleagues would raise some eyebrows at him but, hey, he's on the Supreme Court while the rest of us aren't. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

Still weird though. I mean he said things and did things in a manner that any decent attorney would advise a client not to. He had to have known some colleagues would raise some eyebrows at him but, hey, he's on the Supreme Court while the rest of us aren't. 

I think the thought process is that there was a greater risk of Trump pulling his nomination than the Republican-controlled Senate voting him down. Raised eyebrows from colleagues won’t keep him off the Supreme Court, but Trump easily could.

Edited by bigbottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigbottom said:

I suspect that you're right.  I think his belligerence and hyper-partisanship during the hearing was mostly an act - a performance he gave for an audience of one.  Following his interview when he was calm, measured, reasonable and empathetic, the man who appointed him was reportedly very critical.  My guess is that Kavanaugh is more like the guy in the interview than the guy in the hearing.

I am sure he received coaching and advice on how to handle accusatory type questions which ended up being poor advice and/or not well done by Kavanaugh.   Coming across positive when you are being combative is not easy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

No.  I watched the same one.  I have a friend who worked with Kavanaugh for years and has a much better insight into his temperament than what happened at the democratic circus show.

I’m not big on the “temperament” thing really.  Trump told him to dance, so he danced.  

I am big on the liar thing though.  As a lawyer, I find it entirely disqualifying for a circuit level bench job.  Never mind the Supreme Court.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I think the thought process is that there was a greater risk of Trump pulling his nomination than the Republican-controlled Senate voting him down. Raised eyebrows from colleagues won’t keep him off the Supreme Court, but Trump easily could.

I believe you were the one saying this at the time and I think you were (and are) absolutely correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, zoonation said:

I’m not big on the “temperament” thing really.  Trump told him to dance, so he danced.  

I am big on the liar thing though.  As a lawyer, I find it entirely disqualifying for a circuit level bench job.  Never mind the Supreme Court.  

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  Trying to say he lied about some slang terms like what Devil's Triangle means or what Boofing means is ridiculous.  They are just slang terms which could have different usage with different kids.  The whipping out his penis thing is touted as a lie, but yet the supposed victim does not recall it.  There are huge reasons to doubt the accuracy of Ford's story.  A lot of stories that people believe Kavanaugh must be lying about, but nothing that is a concrete fact.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  Trying to say he lied about some slang terms like what Devil's Triangle means or what Boofing means is ridiculous.  They are just slang terms which could have different usage with different kids.  The whipping out his penis thing is touted as a lie, but yet the supposed victim does not recall it.  There are huge reasons to doubt the accuracy of Ford's story.  A lot of stories that people believe Kavanaugh must be lying about, but nothing that is a concrete fact.  

I guess we have different standards for Supreme Court justices.  

Yours,

Zoo

FFFFFFFF

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

No.  I watched the same one.  I have a friend who worked with Kavanaugh for years and has a much better insight into his temperament than what happened at the democratic circus show.

Wait, didn't you call me out for making an anecdotal reference to the fact that out of the dozens, maybe several hundred LGBT people I have known in my lifetime, none have ever said they chose their orientation or could make a change to be straight, like you contend with your so-called outlier study.

Now you come up with a personal anecdote about one supposed friend who worked with Kavanaugh and hold that out as some sort of proof (which sounds good, but can't be verified unless you want to give your friend's name). You can't make this stuff up. 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  Trying to say he lied about some slang terms like what Devil's Triangle means or what Boofing means is ridiculous.  They are just slang terms which could have different usage with different kids.  The whipping out his penis thing is touted as a lie, but yet the supposed victim does not recall it.  There are huge reasons to doubt the accuracy of Ford's story.  A lot of stories that people believe Kavanaugh must be lying about, but nothing that is a concrete fact.  

Quote

One of our good — one of our good female friends that we admired and went to dances with, we had her name on the yearbook page with the term “alumnus.” That yearbook reference was clumsily meant to show affection, that she was one of us.

 

You can’t possibly believe that a bunch of high school boys publish in their yearbook entries that they are “alumni” of a girl or part of the “Renate Club” or the “Renate Suicide Squad”, including one who wrote a poem about calling Renate if it’s getting late and you need a date, did so as a means of “showing her affection” and “that she was one of us,” particularly when other classmates confirmed that the boys boasted of conquests with her and knew exactly what the entries were about, and she never even knew about the 14 separate times her name was mentioned in the yearbook. If it was meant to show her affection and that she was one of them, why would not a single one of them ever have mentioned it to her?  That statement by Kavanaugh is so obviously a load of horse####, that I am truly hoping that you don’t try to argue that he could have been testifying truthfully lest I lose the great deal of respect that I have for you (which i do).

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Can you elaborate here? 

I know there is a lot of talk about his mortgage, the CC membership, and the credit card debt, but I dont really understand it. If I follow his judicial disclosures year to year, I dont see these things stand out. I have only been able to find one recent disclosure that has net worth. 

But In 2015(filed 2016) i see Three debts two with code J for CC and one for Thrift savings(i assume this is like a 401k loan?) with a K.

2016- four debts with code K. 

2017- One debt with code J.

2017-mid 2018 with net worth nominee disc.- Shows just the thrift savings plan liability, but then in the net worth statement shows that they owe 815k in real estate mortgages. So it seems like maybe you dont list a mortgage on the liabilities if you have equity in the home? But I don't know will try and look up some other judges. 

Where is the other debt info coming from? Are there some other documents out there? Do we know how much cash on hand he had year to year from somewhere else?

You have brought this up now a couple times in this thread, so i assume you probably know where to find the docs.  

I haven't followed the money thing like others have. This is actually ther first i brought it up. Think you have me mixed up with someone else. My concerns have always been his temperament,  had disrespect and how comfortable he is being as partisan as he is. 

To the money,  it's my understanding that one day it was there,  the next day it wasn't. I thought he was asked about it, and avoided answering,  but that might be incorrect. I can't find an explanation. I didn't even know a mortgage wad part of this. I knew about the cc debt and his membership issues at a high level. Seems like something he could easily explain. But hasn't for whatever reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigbottom said:

I suspect that you're right.  I think his belligerence and hyper-partisanship during the hearing was mostly an act - a performance he gave for an audience of one.  Following his interview when he was calm, measured, reasonable and empathetic, the man who appointed him was reportedly very critical.  My guess is that Kavanaugh is more like the guy in the interview than the guy in the hearing.

That makes it worse in my mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  Trying to say he lied about some slang terms like what Devil's Triangle means or what Boofing means is ridiculous.  They are just slang terms which could have different usage with different kids.  The whipping out his penis thing is touted as a lie, but yet the supposed victim does not recall it.  There are huge reasons to doubt the accuracy of Ford's story.  A lot of stories that people believe Kavanaugh must be lying about, but nothing that is a concrete fact.  

You’d make a fine juror. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I have yet to hear a really convincing arguement that he absolutely lied.  Trying to say he lied about some slang terms like what Devil's Triangle means or what Boofing means is ridiculous.  They are just slang terms which could have different usage with different kids.  The whipping out his penis thing is touted as a lie, but yet the supposed victim does not recall it.  There are huge reasons to doubt the accuracy of Ford's story.  A lot of stories that people believe Kavanaugh must be lying about, but nothing that is a concrete fact.  

Just reading this paragraph, you're telling me this one man has been associated with all of the things underlined?

Look at what you have there, and you still haven't covered the allegations about him.

There's Mike Judge's book too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just reading this paragraph, you're telling me this one man has been associated with all of the things underlined?

Look at what you have there, and you still haven't covered the allegations about him.

There's Mike Judge's book too.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.