America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by tailgater. 110 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Trump mocking Christine Blasey Ford.
Abrignac Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Speyside wrote:
I think this is shameful. I truely believe something traumatised her. It's not going to end, Trump is an azzhole and he has reached a new low. She may be completely wrong about Kavanaugh, but no one deserves this.


She made her bed. Now she needs to lie in it.

TANSTAAFL
HuckFinn Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
DrafterX wrote:
You couldn't get the white ones cause of the war.. Mellow

so we don't get to use the deplorables..there're plenty of non-biased whites.....s'ok..no worries..

Sides, who wants Russian sympathizers!?
RMAN4443 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Speyside wrote:
I think this is shameful. I truely believe something traumatised her. It's not going to end, Trump is an azzhole and he has reached a new low. She may be completely wrong about Kavanaugh, but no one deserves this.

So, if she is completely wrong about Kavanaugh, did he and his family deserve any of this? There is no corroboration for any of her accusations...
There is corroboration to show she lied....at least concerning her fear of flying, as she has flown many times for vacations and business....she even flew to Maryland recently(Aug. 7 2018) to submit to her "polygraph test", which consisted of two questions(no surprise she passed)


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/christine-fords-polygraph-test-has-just-been-released-it-tells-us-nothing
frankj1 Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
HuckFinn wrote:
so we don't get to use the deplorables..there're plenty of non-biased whites.....s'ok..no worries..

Sides, who wants Russian sympathizers!?

he was replying to my onion on the belt comment...

Simpsons reference, but I can see how you mistook it.
HuckFinn Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
frankj1 wrote:
he was replying to my onion on the belt comment...

Simpsons reference, but I can see how you mistook it.

Ah. It was either that...or that..

My first screw up...

But I ain't apologizing to drafter, that's fo' sho'
DrafterX Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Grampa Simpson: We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Laugh
frankj1 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
I'm not old enough to remember them days, but I love the stories.
bgz Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
HuckFinn wrote:
so we don't get to use the deplorables..there're plenty of non-biased whites.....s'ok..no worries..

Sides, who wants Russian sympathizers!?


FYI, to hucktards, non-biased means they don't agree with Huck.
RMAN4443 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
bgz wrote:
FYI, to hucktards, non-biased means they don't agree with Huck.


I've gotta be one of the most non-biased people I know.....Think
ZRX1200 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQIUgI2aBSY
ZRX1200 Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/huge-development-feinstein-moves-seal-fbi-investigation-case-collapses/
DrafterX Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
That way they can keep on making chit up without anyway to dispute it... Very sad really... Mellow
zitotczito Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
DrafterX wrote:
I'm not garbage... I'm a deplorable.. Mellow



Old news, your are now the "Dregs of Society."

Try to keep up please with the new names some conservatives are called. LOL
zitotczito Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
Trump was not mocking her at all, why waste the time getting personal which would be a bad idea. Judge Kavanaugh was getting beat up bad at the time and President Trump brought the conversation back to her unproven allegation and he took the heat from Kavanaugh to himself.
MACS Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
HuckFinn wrote:
Every bully's motto.


Good Lord you're an idiot... and deserve to be mocked.

Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned. I doubt the SCOTUS even looks at it again. It was a talking point of the left to scare people into thinking he was a bad choice.
Speyside Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Congratulations to judge Kavanaugh.
zitotczito Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 08-21-2006
Posts: 6,441
+1
RMAN4443 Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
HuckFinn wrote:
so we don't get to use the deplorables..there're plenty of non-biased whites.....s'ok..no worries..

Sides, who wants Russian sympathizers!?

God your dumb....and I DGAF.....LOL
delta1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
Trump admitted mocking Ford to "even the playing field". He said we need "to worry about our sons." The implication is that there is more danger today of a man being falsely accused than a woman being sexually assaulted.

Facts show, which Drafter pointed to, that from 2 to 10% of allegations by women of being sexually assaulted are false. That only counts the reported ones. If you take those numbers seriously, then women are 9 to 50 times more likely to be assaulted sexually by a man than a man is likely to be falsely accused.

With the "national disgrace" behind us, it is likely those numbers would skew more in the favor of men, and those comments reinforce that.
RMAN4443 Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
Trump admitted mocking Ford to "even the playing field". He said we need "to worry about our sons." The implication is that there is more danger today of a man being falsely accused than a woman being sexually assaulted.

Facts show, which Drafter pointed to, that from 2 to 10% of allegations by women of being sexually assaulted are false. That only counts the reported ones. If you take those numbers seriously, then women are 9 to 50 times more likely to be assaulted sexually by a man than a man is likely to be falsely accused.

With the "national disgrace" behind us, it is likely those numbers would skew more in the favor of men, and those comments reinforce that.

Sexual assault is a crime, and false accusations against ANYONE to achieve a POLITICAL goal should be too! False accusations for any reason, against anyone should be pursued as a crime.
This country was founded on the Presumption of Innocence....not Try To Prove Yourself Innocent When Accused of a 36 Year Old ,Impossible to Corroborate, Allegation Made During the Heat of a Political Debate, by an Accuser Who Knowingly Committed Perjury(Fear of Flying my azz}Liar During the Senate Proceedings Shame on you Not talking
tailgater Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
politics and specifics to this case have nothing to do with my feelings in general, so you may find it odd that I feel the opposite protects us all in a better way.


When I say "believe the accuser" I'm talking about listening to the claims.
RMAN4443 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
delta1 wrote:
Anita Hill II...something may or may not have happened, but she believes it happened, so she's wacko...

I guess these allegations are false only when you like the guy...we may never know who's telling the truth, but she answered every question and he avoided answering a lot of questions, and was obviously lying when answering some questions...

be interesting to see the FBI report and the limitations/parameters set by WH/Senate...


...nothing's changed since Thomas v Hill, despite all the rich and powerful men who have been brought down in the past 2-3 years...now we're told we have to worry about our boys

nope...a real parent knows you have to worry more about your girls

seeing that FBI report would be the way to go, but the fine honest and upstanding Senator Diane Feinstein has decided that the FBI report should be kept sealed and viewable by the Senate only....I wonder what she is trying to keep hidden from the public???Think
Too bad she didn't feel it was as important to keep the anonymous Blasey Ford letter private as was requested by Ford...I wonder how that letter, which if you believe Ford....and it seems like you do, asked Feinstein to keep it anonymous... how did the letter ever come to be published, if the (un)honorable DiFI had kept her promise not to release it, it would not be an issue today....oh, and I for one believe Di Fi should be investigated and charged with ethics violations..

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409153-cotton-says-feinstein-will-be-investigated-over-leaked-ford-letter

Applause
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
delta1 wrote:
Trump admitted mocking Ford to "even the playing field". He said we need "to worry about our sons." The implication is that there is more danger today of a man being falsely accused than a woman being sexually assaulted.

Facts show, which Drafter pointed to, that from 2 to 10% of allegations by women of being sexually assaulted are false. That only counts the reported ones. If you take those numbers seriously, then women are 9 to 50 times more likely to be assaulted sexually by a man than a man is likely to be falsely accused.

With the "national disgrace" behind us, it is likely those numbers would skew more in the favor of men, and those comments reinforce that.


Implication is that men face MORE danger?

That might be your own conclusion. You shouldn't present it as what other people mean.

I've listened to people on both sides of the aisle talk about the threat to men regarding accusations, and not once did any of them say or otherwise suggest that it's a bigger threat than the one women face of being assaulted.

If someone out there is suggesting this I'd like to read it.



HuckFinn Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
MACS wrote:
Good Lord you're an idiot... and deserve to be mocked.

Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned. I doubt the SCOTUS even looks at it again. It was a talking point of the left to scare people into thinking he was a bad choice.


During the 2016 presidential election, Trump claimed that Roe v. Wade would be “automatically” overruled by his Supreme Court picks.



Justice Kennedy’s successor Brett Kavanaugh has expressed hostility to Roe. In a public speech last year, Kavanaugh praised the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent from the Roe decision.

It's true that even if the Supreme Court votes to overrule Roe, it wouldn’t immediately make abortion illegal throughout the country. That would probably require five justices to decide that embryos and fetuses are “persons” entitled to constitutional protection. No justice – not even Scalia – has ever taken such an extreme view.

Instead, the court would probably say that states are allowed to restrict abortion however they see fit. It would say that states can choose to protect potential life, and that the woman’s right to choose whether and when to become a parent is not strong enough to overcome the state’s interest in protecting fetuses.

That means some states would probably outlaw abortion altogether, perhaps with narrow exceptions in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. Other states may place few or no restrictions on abortion – perhaps making it illegal only once the fetus is viable, typically after the 22nd week of pregnancy.



With 4 conservative scotus one thing is almost certain though, the court will continue to erode the power of Roe.



Anyway, not sure how my post 'some people deserve to be mocked was the motto of bullies' led you to an abortion diatribe and...I don't care. Was weird though.


Everybody's a tough guy online. It's easy to mock others when you're typing away and not face-to-face.

Guess I hit a nerve. I wasn't insulting you. I was making a point. An obvious observation: Bullies mock other people.

Especially people they can't control.



You're reaction to what I posted was idiotic imo. That doesn't make you an idiot.

Just another internet tough guy who can't tolerate opposing povs..
DrafterX Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
A 5 min Herf..?? Huh
MACS Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,776
I'll say to your face what I say here. I work in a frickin' jail... if I was afraid of confrontation or physical violence I'd have a different job, I think. Laugh
DrafterX Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
gotta be careful with FOGs tho.. they don't give a chit anymore and will just pop a cap... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
You spelled poop wrong.

DrafterX Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Laugh
RMAN4443 Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
question.....if you get banned how long is it for? I noticed Huck on the "Active Users" page listed as "reporting a post",so I'm gonna assume he was reporting my post offering to buy him a beerAnxious ....I guess he took offense to me offering a "Beer Summit"....Think
I don't imagine he reported himself for any of his out of line posts...Not talking
So anyway, is there a set time period for a first time banning?
DrafterX Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
about 3 days usually... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
Narks suck... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Rman... Following in the footsteps of those real Socratic geniuses like jimmyct....
RMAN4443 Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
victor809 wrote:
Rman... Following in the footsteps of those real Socratic geniuses like jimmyct....

I guess so...I really don't know what your talking about....Think
frankj1 Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
historic c bid reference.

Rick, a ban is chit, but try to calm down for your own health.
ZRX1200 Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
Don’t worry about getting banned, I can get anyone un-banned.....shoot I got teedubya back and nobody likes him.
DrafterX Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
So, did he get banned..?? Huh
Speyside Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Tired of all of the Democratic/liberal screaming still going on. This is over. My hope is justice Kavanaugh is a fine member of SCOTUS who is a constitutionalist. One can only think Feinstein sealed the report because it restored Kavanaugh's name and or proved Blasey Ford and others lied.
DrafterX Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,551
That's what I heard.. Mellow
ZRX1200 Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,604
I can’t wait for the kegger pics of Kavanaugh and Ruth Batty G playing beer pong nude.
RMAN4443 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
DrafterX wrote:
So, did he get banned..?? Huh


I guess I made it through the confirmation process...Angel

ZRX1200 wrote:
I can’t wait for the kegger pics of Kavanaugh and Ruth Batty G playing beer pong nude.



Those are some pictures I'd rather poke my eyes out than have to see...Scared
delta1 Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,788
tailgater wrote:
Implication is that men face MORE danger?

That might be your own conclusion. You shouldn't present it as what other people mean.

I've listened to people on both sides of the aisle talk about the threat to men regarding accusations, and not once did any of them say or otherwise suggest that it's a bigger threat than the one women face of being assaulted.

If someone out there is suggesting this I'd like to read it.




Here's an article that talks about the implications to women, of what Trump said. Since you prolly won't read it, I've quoted a salient paragraph, which is representative of how the average American mom received Trump's messages.

https://www.mother.ly/news/president-trump-mocked-dr-ford-mothers-respond?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2


"For self-described #boymom Jennifer, Trump's showing empathy for the accused while mocking the accuser did not sit well. "All he is worried about is what the future of our sons look[s] like," she wrote, adding that the President doesn't seem concerned about how American women who have been through sexual assault feel seeing the nation's leader insulting a woman who came forward."


ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
RMAN4443 wrote:
question.....if you get banned how long is it for? I noticed Huck on the "Active Users" page listed as "reporting a post",so I'm gonna assume he was reporting my post offering to buy him a beerAnxious ....I guess he took offense to me offering a "Beer Summit"....Think
I don't imagine he reported himself for any of his out of line posts...Not talking
So anyway, is there a set time period for a first time banning?



Learn something new everyday...
ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
Yes, he is banned. The comment he made wasn't called for.

The basic rule for using the Forum is that you use good judgment and common sense in keeping your comments and messages reasonable. Some examples of unreasonable messages may include the use of profanity, advertising or commercial purposes, competing web sites, or disparaging an individual, a race or religion, a company, or website. In the event that certain Forum postings are questionable, the posting will be taken down, and offenders may have their privileges removed. This message area is monitored by our staff, who reserve the right to remove, edit or close a post or thread at any time; however, it is impossible to review every message, While we will make every effort to remove objectionable material right away, by using the Forum you acknowledge that all posts are the express opinions of the authors only. Therefore, in no way will CigarBid or its administrators or staff be held liable for any post. The IP address of all posts is recorded to assist in enforcing these terms and conditions.

By entering the Forum you agree to be bound by these conditions.
victor809 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Uh oh.... Shana comes in swinging the banhammer!
bgz Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Huck ratted out RMAN?, or did it backfire on Huck? I'm confused, who got banned?
RMAN4443 Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
bgz wrote:
Huck ratted out RMAN?, or did it backfire on Huck? I'm confused, who got banned?

not me
ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
bgz wrote:
Huck ratted out RMAN?, or did it backfire on Huck? I'm confused, who got banned?



Laugh
ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
victor809 wrote:
Uh oh.... Shana comes in swinging the banhammer!



ram27bat


Yup, yup!
victor809 Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Good to see you around Shana!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>