Posted on 09/14/2019 6:33:42 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
I will continue to doubt until I see undoctored 35mm negatives and Super 8 films!
GEEZ, did I just date myself?
The girls began getting very aggressive in middle school. My son was warned.
He was in Animal House, too.
Sorry I never experienced any of that stuff. People went steady back when I was in high school and college. And we didn’t hook up. Life was easier and a lot better then. Most of my cousins got married by age 22.
NYT issued a retraction.
“These girls want to keep the narrative alive.”
At least until the 2020 election; the Dems are maintaining a coordinated, multi-pronged attack along ethnic and gender lines to peel away minority and female Trump supporters before the big day.
Expect stories along these lines every day until the election - seriously.
My GAYDAR is off the charts!!
“This tells me that the Media knows that something damaging is coming out soon and they need to create a distraction from it.”
Good point - or it is just to get in the anti-female Trump attack du jour. They need to keep this operation running 24/7/365 until the election, hoping each story (regardless of truth) peels a few people away from the Trump train.
Women, blacks, and Hispanics could have enthroned Hillary in 2016, but they didn’t - and the media has been working double-time to prevent such a travesty again. The BS climate stories are for liberal whites, while the race-baiting and gender war nonsense is for blacks, Hispanics, and women.
Especially because she couldn’t have been that innocent if she was drunk, too, at this frat party. The way she describes it is suspect. Sounds my like she was partially or totally naked, too, or how else would he have forced her? And an innocent girl moves away fast, she doesn’t touch it.
Yes, kids thought of the opposite sex in two main ways: marriageable or not marriage material. Now there are 100 genders, so I hear.
So glad a relative whose kid was older than ours gave us a warning, so we were ready for it. We talked to our kid, and had to call the parents of several of those little monsters. And that was just before the days of phone cameras and sexting. I pity the parents of today.
Yep. My kid is now in his 20s. I am still warning him. “Keep it zipped!”
Wasn’t a typo. Trying to be obtuse. It worked.
This whole scam is an artifact of the fact that judges do not sue for libel. The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision says, in so many words, that judges cannot sue for libel. That decision by the Warren Court was unanimous - unanimously wrong.Although the plaintiff Sullivan was a Democrat, that is deceptive because he was a Southern Democrat - a breed of the sort which fought the Republicans in the Civil War, but also in bad odor with Democrat liberals in 1964.
In reality the journalism cartel essentially inverted the meaning of the term “liberal” from “agreeing with Jim Robinson” to its unadmitted, implausibly denied, modern connotation: “agreeing with, and going along and getting along perfectly with, the perspective of journalism.” And there are not now any Democrat politicians other than “liberals.”
The upshot is that Democrats don’t get libeled - but conservatives do. Thus, the Sullivan rule that it’s easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a politician to get a hearing for his libel complaint doesn’t affect Democrats at all - and is ruinous to the reputations of conservative politicians and their adherents.
In Sullivan, SCOTUS claimed that the First Amendment gave the press freedom from legal constraint on libeling politicians, but that is untrue. The plain fact is that the Bill of Rights - see the plain text of the Ninth Amendment - was strictly conservative in that it gave no one any new right. Think: how would the composers of the Bill of Rights have gone about gaining consensus for the creation of new rights??? They patently did not try - their objective rather was to provide assurance to the AntiFederalists that the Constitution did not change anyone’s rights in any way not explicit in the text of the Constitution.
As Scalia noted, the meaning of the phrase “the freedom . . . of the press” is different from the simple “freedom . . . of the press” would have been. “The” freedom of the press was the freedom which existed before the Constitution was ratified. Freedom, that is, within the constraints of traditional laws against libel and pornography. Thus the right of a plaintiff to sue for libel - unenumerated but plainly implied in 1A - is not changed but protected by the Bill of Rights. The Warren Court claim that the First Amendment reduced the right of a politician or judge to sue for libel is therefore unfounded. To reach their desired conclusion SCOTUS would have to have shown that restriction of politicians’ rights to sue for libel preexisted the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Absent the visionary dissent by freshman Justice Antonin Scalia, the 1988 Morrison v. Olson decision would also have been unanimous. But although it has never been overturned, Morrison is considered to have been delegitimated by history, and worthless as precedent. Why should anyone suppose it impossible that the Warren Court, lacking an Antonin Scalia, could have been unanimously wrong???
This whole scam is an artifact of the fact that judges do not sue for libel. The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision says, in so many words, that judges cannot sue for libel. That decision by the Warren Court was unanimous - unanimously wrong.Although the plaintiff Sullivan was a Democrat, that is deceptive because he was a Southern Democrat - a breed of the sort which fought the Republicans in the Civil War, but also in bad odor with Democrat liberals in 1964.
In reality the journalism cartel essentially inverted the meaning of the term “liberal” from “agreeing with Jim Robinson” to its unadmitted, implausibly denied, modern connotation: “agreeing with, and going along and getting along perfectly with, the perspective of journalism.” And there are not now any Democrat politicians other than “liberals.”
The upshot is that Democrats don’t get libeled - but conservatives do. Thus, the Sullivan rule that it’s easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a politician to get a hearing for his libel complaint doesn’t affect Democrats at all - and is ruinous to the reputations of conservative politicians and their adherents.
In Sullivan, SCOTUS claimed that the First Amendment gave the press freedom from legal constraint on libeling politicians, but that is untrue. The plain fact is that the Bill of Rights - see the plain text of the Ninth Amendment - was strictly conservative in that it gave no one any new right. Think: how would the composers of the Bill of Rights have gone about gaining consensus for the creation of new rights??? They patently did not try - their objective rather was to provide assurance to the AntiFederalists that the Constitution did not change anyone’s rights in any way not explicit in the text of the Constitution.
As Scalia noted, the meaning of the phrase “the freedom . . . of the press” is different from the simple “freedom . . . of the press” would have been. “The” freedom of the press was the freedom which existed before the Constitution was ratified. Freedom, that is, within the constraints of traditional laws against libel and pornography. Thus the right of a plaintiff to sue for libel - unenumerated but plainly implied in 1A - is not changed but protected by the Bill of Rights. The Warren Court claim that the First Amendment reduced the right of a politician or judge to sue for libel is therefore unfounded. To reach their desired conclusion SCOTUS would have to have shown that restriction of politicians’ rights to sue for libel preexisted the Constitution and the First Amendment.
Absent the visionary dissent by freshman Justice Antonin Scalia, the 1988 Morrison v. Olson decision would also have been unanimous. But although it has never been overturned, Morrison is considered to have been delegitimated by history, and worthless as precedent. Why should anyone suppose it impossible that the Warren Court, lacking an Antonin Scalia, could have been unanimously wrong???
Are you that ####ing bored that you critique comments that don’t affect anyone or anything.
Not much of a debate forum if I can't respond to you or anyone else's comments. As to the idea that your comments don't affect anyone or anything, that's not true. I enjoy your posts. You've got to give yourself more credit, man.
Since this woman doesn't remember WHERE she was at the time (just like C B-Ford) or how she got home, I thought it relevant to offer the suggestion that maybe she WAS at home. This woman stated she was trying to get 'in' with the cool kids. One of the ways to do that is to have party at 'your house', and offer free BJ's in the bathroom to the jocks after you've had one too many.
On the second comment (Guys do stupid things when they’re drunk.), I was noting that this woman said she and her friends were drunk. She did not say Kavanaugh was, although he might well have been drunk also. I was just trying to get the facts straight.
Or are you one of those b.tches here that don’t like me but are too b.tch to say it? :)
Yes... I mean No... I mean... oh you mean bad man, you get me so flustered I think I'll go cry.
; )
If you go back and look at the incredible allegations by the left, you will find that most of them were taken from MOVIES.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.