No Sleep For Rory & Crew

[CandiCame]

And guess whose testimony I found incredible (and yes, that means not credible)?

That's good for you, but it doesn't magically make something 'not evidence'. You don't have to believe ANY piece of evidence. But claiming there was 'no evidence' is just factually incorrect.

It makes you sound dumb to say something that is just patently false. You can say you don't BELIEVE the evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't say that religion doesn't exist. Because I'm not a goddamn idiot.

 

[bellisarius]

I consider myself one of those people who held her nose to vote for the Don, and, given the main alternative, I have no regrets on the matter (yet). But his style still greatly grates on me.

Two things about the "foregone conclusion". Not clear to me that he will be president until the next election. The House will vote to impeach .... the Senate probably will not go along. But I suspect he is vulnerable to an obstruction of justice charge.

Second, I do not see that he has broadened his base. Those who detested him in 2016 will still detest him, only more so. Moreover, it will take only a small majority of those who sat out the last election- or were too young to vote- to give the election to the Democrats, whatever candidate they come up with. I

I voted for Trump with some trepidation myself. He was an unknown quantity on the political stage and politicians have a way of saying one thing before the election while doing quite another after the election. He had no track record so it was virtually impossible to tell which direction he'd go when or if elected. He did have one huge factor going for him.............he wasn't Hilary.

Trump is just like the rest of us, flawed. The number of US presidents that have had dalliances with women other than their wives is a long and distinguished list. The presidents that haven't are the exceptions. And when it comes to stretching the truth, if that were a disqualification for office we'd have no politicians at all. All of that being said I look at his policies, because in the end that IS what any politician is elected for, and find myself in agreement on most issues. I don't care what you say as a politician, or even what you do with your personal life, only what you do that effects me is what counts.

Trump is probably the most transparent president we've had since Harry Truman. There's a lot to pick on if you're an opponent. And they are. They are mostly ascribing foul motives to perfectly legal acts. Sorta like casting suspicion on an individual because they ARE driving the speed limit.

As far as the next election goes, that's well over a year away. And in politics that's a lifetime. Ample time for Trump or any one of his challengers to step on a land mine.

 

[nowisthetime]

Nope, the race-baiting originates from the alt-right. Non Deplorables are simply defending against the trash.



Sorry your society is changing. Get over it or move to Utah or somewhere where the people of color presence is low.

Weird.

 

[Rightguide]

Nope, the race-baiting originates from the alt-right. Non Deplorables are simply defending against the trash.



Sorry your society is changing. Get over it or move to Utah or somewhere where the people of color presence is low.

Weird.

^^^

Then we have the goose stepping propagandist.

 

[DeluxAuto]

^^^

Then we have the goose stepping propagandist.

Which part of her post was goose-stepping and which part iis propaganda?

 

[Rightguide]

Which part of her post was goose-stepping and which part iis propaganda?

"Nope, the race-baiting originates from the alt-right. Non Deplorables are simply defending against the trash."

^^^

Ideological goose stepping and propaganda, tropes repeated ad nauseam in perfect step with other leftists.

 

[HisArpy]

That's good for you, but it doesn't magically make something 'not evidence'. You don't have to believe ANY piece of evidence. But claiming there was 'no evidence' is just factually incorrect.

It makes you sound dumb to say something that is just patently false. You can say you don't BELIEVE the evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't say that religion doesn't exist. Because I'm not a goddamn idiot.

There is a difference between 'evidence' and 'accusation'.

Repeating an accusation under oath is STILL not 'evidence', it is merely 'uncorroborated testimony'. 'Evidence' is what supports the accusation.

In the Kavanaugh case, there was testimony about the house/rooms/party/social scene/etc. None of that supported the accusation because it was all background. Neither did the "it was well known about those Catholic School boys..." testimony because it doesn't show that Kavanaugh actually tried to do something. It was, in essence, hearsay association masquerading as 'proof of guilt'. It is the same with the beer drinking and yearbook scribbles. Thus, when you take out all the dross, what you have left is an accusation based on an unknown time/date/place and no supporting evidence.

IOW, mere testimony is not evidence, it is the content of the testimony which is evidence. Those who rush to proclaim guilt upon nothing more than a cry of 'witch' do not understand this. Fortunately for those so accused, most of the rest of us do.

 

[DeluxAuto]

"Nope, the race-baiting originates from the alt-right. Non Deplorables are simply defending against the trash."

^^^

Ideological goose stepping and propaganda, tropes repeated ad nauseam in perfect step with other leftists.

You are absolutely petrified right now. It's pathetic.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Dear Rory & Crew,

Are y'all sleeping okay?

Cuz I suppose I'm part of the "crew," and, well...I got a great sleep in last night, myself!

 

[Rightguide]

You are absolutely petrified right now. It's pathetic.

You're just intellectually pathetic. I've seen heard better use of gut wind watching Blazing Saddles.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Then we have the goose stepping propagandist.

I've seen heard better use of gut wind watching Blazing Saddles.

"goose-stepping."

"gut wind."

oh man, it's sweet to have the old Vette back, you don't even know, guy!

 

[nowisthetime]

Dear Rory & Crew,

Are y'all sleeping okay?

Cuz I suppose I'm part of the "crew," and, well...I got a great sleep in last night, myself!

They know I'm part of the crew.

Indeed, I slept like a baby last night after fooling with boo. No one is thinking about the GB goobers after logging off. They aren't that important.

I'm pretty sure they spent their night limp, fixing to create another stroke to Rory thread.

 

[CandiCame]

There is a difference between 'evidence' and 'accusation'.

Repeating an accusation under oath is STILL not 'evidence', it is merely 'uncorroborated testimony'. 'Evidence' is what supports the accusation.

In the Kavanaugh case, there was testimony about the house/rooms/party/social scene/etc. None of that supported the accusation because it was all background. Neither did the "it was well known about those Catholic School boys..." testimony because it doesn't show that Kavanaugh actually tried to do something. It was, in essence, hearsay association masquerading as 'proof of guilt'. It is the same with the beer drinking and yearbook scribbles. Thus, when you take out all the dross, what you have left is an accusation based on an unknown time/date/place and no supporting evidence.

IOW, mere testimony is not evidence, it is the content of the testimony which is evidence. Those who rush to proclaim guilt upon nothing more than a cry of 'witch' do not understand this. Fortunately for those so accused, most of the rest of us do.

Holy shit. You actually think people are going to think you're a lawyer when you don't even know what evidence is.

 

[Bill_Cosplay]

That's good for you, but it doesn't magically make something 'not evidence'. You don't have to believe ANY piece of evidence. But claiming there was 'no evidence' is just factually incorrect.

It makes you sound dumb to say something that is just patently false. You can say you don't BELIEVE the evidence.

I'm an atheist but I don't say that religion doesn't exist. Because I'm not a goddamn idiot.

You claim that you're not an idiot, but your word is not evidence enough.

The accuser stating that she was assaulted doesn't magically make it evidence either.

What we had was an accusation that is not provable through words alone, and to absolutely believe it would make you dumb. It was 30 some years old, made public through soft political games in order to undermine President Trump's agenda. After that, interviews were conducted, none of them certifying that her accusations were true to a certainty.

I followed the case. I drew my conclusion by watching it and reading about it, and since all of the evidence/accusations were nothing more than verbal and the time of this strong woman coming out with this bombshell was so suspicious, I can say I do not believe it and I can say it is false and be justified in doing so, because if it's not false, then it's true and I didn't believe her. If you can give me more than her word, I'll reevaluate my belief, because Kavanaugh gave us his word that he didn't do it, and wouldn't that be evidence too?

You need to look up False Evidence, but here is one example:
Forged evidence - an item or information manufactured, or altered, to support some agenda, is not admissible in many courts, including U.S. criminal courts.

That is what what happened in the Kavanaugh case, and false evidence is no evidence at all.

 

[CandiCame]

Y'all like dictionary definitions. Here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony#Law

Dig that hole as deep as y'all want. We'll watch.

 

[Bill_Cosplay]

Y'all like dictionary definitions. Here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony#Law

Dig that hole as deep as y'all want. We'll watch.

In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.

She said he did it.

He said he didn't.

Hmm. Whose evidence do I believe?

 

[HisArpy]

Y'all like dictionary definitions. Here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony#Law

Dig that hole as deep as y'all want. We'll watch.

Lol. the fact that I understand what words mean is why I'm an attorney and you're, whatever it is that you are.

Testimony is a FORM of evidence <--- that's from your own link.

A "form" of evidence, is not necessarily "evidence" in an of itself in the context you're attempting to use it in here.

Hearsay, for example is done by testimony. It too is a "form" of evidence. Yet, hearsay (a statement by a non witness used to prove the truth contained in the statement) is not considered "evidence" because it's not admissible unless an exception applies. Thus, without an applicable exception, hearsay is NOT "evidence".

Yet, it's still "testimony".

Again, the fact that I understand that, and you don't, is why I'm the lawyer and you're not.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I voted for Trump with some trepidation myself. He was an unknown quantity on the political stage and politicians have a way of saying one thing before the election while doing quite another after the election. He had no track record so it was virtually impossible to tell which direction he'd go when or if elected. He did have one huge factor going for him.............he wasn't Hilary.

Trump is just like the rest of us, flawed. The number of US presidents that have had dalliances with women other than their wives is a long and distinguished list. The presidents that haven't are the exceptions. And when it comes to stretching the truth, if that were a disqualification for office we'd have no politicians at all. All of that being said I look at his policies, because in the end that IS what any politician is elected for, and find myself in agreement on most issues. I don't care what you say as a politician, or even what you do with your personal life, only what you do that effects me is what counts.

Trump is probably the most transparent president we've had since Harry Truman. There's a lot to pick on if you're an opponent. And they are. They are mostly ascribing foul motives to perfectly legal acts. Sorta like casting suspicion on an individual because they ARE driving the speed limit.

As far as the next election goes, that's well over a year away. And in politics that's a lifetime. Ample time for Trump or any one of his challengers to step on a land mine.

"Stretching the truth" Give me a break. This prick pisses on your head and tells you its raining and you believe him.

Why - I will never understand. Some otherwise intelligent people choosing to be lied to does not compute for me.

 

[schism666]

"Stretching the truth" Give me a break. This prick pisses on your head and tells you its raining and you believe him.

Why - I will never understand. Some otherwise intelligent people choosing to be lied to does not compute for me.

you just gave him wood for the first time since the rodney king tape

 

[Rightguide]

Lol. the fact that I understand what words mean is why I'm an attorney and you're, whatever it is that you are.

Testimony is a FORM of evidence <--- that's from your own link.

A "form" of evidence, is not necessarily "evidence" in an of itself in the context you're attempting to use it in here.

Hearsay, for example is done by testimony. It too is a "form" of evidence. Yet, hearsay (a statement by a non witness used to prove the truth contained in the statement) is not considered "evidence" because it's not admissible unless an exception applies. Thus, without an applicable exception, hearsay is NOT "evidence".

Yet, it's still "testimony".

Again, the fact that I understand that, and you don't, is why I'm the lawyer and you're not.

A sad ending for another pair of presumptuous butt cheeks. The carnage continues.

 

[HisArpy]

"Stretching the truth" Give me a break. This prick pisses on your head and tells you its raining and you believe him.

Why - I will never understand. Some otherwise intelligent people choosing to be lied to does not compute for me.

You know what it takes to survive an unwanted golden shower? An umbrella.

You know what it takes to survive the destruction of liberty? Yeah, I'll take the umbrella every time. Especially since every politician ever hatched pisses on someone.

 

[HisArpy]

A sad ending for another pair of presumptuous butt cheeks. The carnage continues.

It's a perfect example of why trying to use Mr. Google to make yourself appear knowledgeable doesn't work.

Real knowledge requires an in-depth understanding that Google returns can't give you. Eventually, you get caught up in what you don't know and are trying to BS your way through and that causes the inevitable flaming meltdown as you try to control the humiliation and carnage.

King Oreo, and others, never seem to figure that out. Right now, Candi is headed toward that cliff at full throttle.

 

[Counselor706]

you just gave him wood for the first time since the rodney king tape

A quick google search indicates the Rodney King tape is from 1991.

I'm sure bellisarius finds it amusing you've been interested in his "wood" for the past 28 years.

 

[HisArpy]

A quick google search indicates the Rodney King tape is from 1991.

I'm sure bellisarius finds it amusing you've been interested in his "wood" for the past 28 years.

I now find that I'm mildly curious as to WHY Jizzlips would be interested in bellisarious' wood for sooooooo long.

You'd think that after 28 years he'd find the courage to step up and ask for a date or something.

 

[schism666]

A quick google search indicates the Rodney King tape is from 1991.

I'm sure bellisarius finds it amusing you've been interested in his "wood" for the past 28 years.

I now find that I'm mildly curious as to WHY Jizzlips would be interested in bellisarious' wood for sooooooo long.

You'd think that after 28 years he'd find the courage to step up and ask for a date or something.

as you two chum the bottom with vette