Posted on 09/21/2018 9:49:44 AM PDT by Simon Green
CNN reports counter offer by GOP in Kavanaugh hearing: Hearing Wednesday. Ford first. No subpoena for eyewitness Judge. GOP will get a woman lawyer to look better for them.
If true, this is a huge mistake. GOP has to retain credibility. They already set a deadline. Breaking that shows weakness and the cycle will not end. Need to end the farce as soon as possible and move on.
If the Repubs shared even a single cojone amongst the entire collection of clowns, their reply would have consisted of two words: “Bite me.”
Thats a visual !
At least some here see the whole picture ...
“May all the accusers have a great life with their cats. ALL men should avoid these shrew hags.”
—
Nonsense
The lib women that I know have husbands and families-——and DOGS and cats.
.
I hope this isn’t true and considering the source it may not be. However if it is, there will be another counter offer from the Ford camp and it will be unacceptable. Give an inch they’ll take a mile. You see Sen. Grassley, she doesn’t want to testify, she’s already done most of her job. The next part of her job is to delay and you’re helping her if you cave. Every time she gets her way, Kavanaugh is closer to NOT being confirmed.
Oh cool, they’re offering to delay it again.
.
.
right?
Does Ted Cruz count as white?
Let Trump negotiate the deal.
Trumps offer. We will not call in the 10 guys you did while in High School.
We will not bring in your yearbook.
Kavanaugh will not sue you for millions.
We will not prosecute you for perjury.
You need to withdraw your complaint and ap apologize to Kavanaugh, the Senate, and the American People for the harm your lives have caused.
“Just giving a counter offer is a cave.”
Eh, not necessarily...in truth it’s only a cave if you know you can control how Flake,Corker and Collins will vote. If you don’t know if you can control them, then you make a counter offer that those three go along with...and when they reject your counter, those three uncontrollable votes are more firmly in your camp.
It’s a longer game...and you play it to secure your side, shore up your weak parts. If you want to jam it down Democrat’s throats...without lube...then DONT have a situation where scum like Flake, Corker and Collins can hold you hostage...get out and VOTE. If the Republicans win the midterms this kind of thing CANT happen.
Let's hope they can find a conservative gay women as the next nominee
The GOP is giving a lying leftist a lot of consideration, while not defending an honorable conservative. That alone is a victory for the dems.
Grassley is a jackass. Ford is garbage. Monday was set and if she did not show have the vote. I am so pissed at the simple minded Republicans that cannot see what is happening and cannot defend themselves I am thinking about getting out of the Party. They are asses.
" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free. Today, the individuals most denied their freedom are those innocent lives in the womb who, if wanted, are called "children," and if, for some reason are inconvenient at the time, are called "fetuses," as Aultman averred.
Another red line? How many does this make?
Does anyone think the Rats are gonna let Grassley violate the one week notice protocol on meetings and ONLY that?
They are opening themselves up to be brutally attacked by the Rats at the hearing (Like they did at the beginnning of the Conformation hearings).
I can write the Talking points...
Chairman Grassley violates protocol to set up and attack the accuser then refused to allow the committee to call others)
Counter with Kavanaugh not facing his accuser if CNN closes it’s doors permanently.
Every inch we give will be used against us as proof we were in the wrong. This woman had thirty years to mull over what happened... she easily could tell her story.
Even engaging in “negotiations” was a big mistake. Big mistake.
<<>>
Agreed. Ratther than playing along with the charade,
Ethics charges should filed against Finestein with a
view to expel her from the senate.
Sitting on accusations instead of bringing them forth
timely manner insults the senate and the citizens.
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.