Warbler

DuracellEnergizer said:

Warbler said:

Hell everyone on the forum hates me now anyway.

Wrong.

Well it feels like it to me.

I’m probably about to get banned again and maybe for good. If so goodbye. Before the last year, I liked this place very much and I liked and respected many forum members on here. It is too bad things got so screwed up in the last year. I know I am to blame for some of it. But not all. I shall miss this place, but not the way things are recently.

No, I don’t think I should have. Sorry, but I pissed right now, real pissed. Pissed at a certain someone that keeps harassing me and the mods and admin that allow it to continue. I am also pissed at being accused of offending victims of sexual assault and misogyny. No reasonable ration person should be offended by what I said earlier. All I did was mention something that was a possibility. I am pissed at all the hate and abuse I have received on here in the past few months. I’ve had it. I am so pissed right now that I barely even care if you perm ban me. Hell everyone on the forum hates me now anyway. They think I am sexist(and probably racist) bigot that worships the flag and is blind patriot and other bullshit. Whatever. I know what I am, and I know I am none of those things.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I was making fun of the crisis actor theory, which is a ludicrous and misogynist theory that should be made fun of.

Specifically, a crisis actor theory that Warbler irresponsibly put forward. I say irresponsible because it minimizes and insults these women and any women (and any men) who are survivors of sexual assault, and it disgusted me to read his comments. That’s why I posted what I did. Hopefully there are no survivors among us (either members or lurkers) who had to read that nonsense. But apparently we’re no better than Alex Jones here, who put forward the same theory about the Sandy Hook children. No one who bothered to watch the emotion those women displayed should be able to even question their sincerity. Might as well question if Dr. Ford is also an actor.

I could have phrased my disgust more specifically the first time, or more civilly if you prefer, but I stand by the sentiment.

oh brother.

All I did was say they could be actors. And for all we knew yesterday, they were. I didn’t say they were actors, I said they could be. I guess you would have it be that any woman anywhere in the country and get up and say “he raped me” and automatically the guy she points to should have have his career and reputation ruined and and should be put in jail and throw away the keep. I am so sorry for being such a sexist pig that I don’t automatically believe any woman I have never seen or heard from or know anything about.

Seriously, it wasn’t possible that some leftwing political group couldn’t have put two women up to doing something like this to pressure a Senator on live TV, that has a swing vote in an extremely important political decision that ramifications that could last decades?

I won’t apologize. I have nothing to apologize for. All I did was say that it was possible. If I offended any victims of sexual assault, too bad. Anyone offended by what I said is ridiculously oversensitive and not reading my comments in a rational logical manner. I never said these women weren’t sexually assaulted. I said that for all we knew they weren’t.

But I guess in today’s society we should automatically assume all women tell the gospel truth all the time. It puts a new spin on “To Kill a Mockingbird”, doesn’t it?

Possessed said:

I’m back folks. And just to clear the air, I only said what I said to warbler because of a very unfortunate typo on his part that made me read what he said as far more egregious than what he actually meant to say. (Although I still disagree with what he meant but not to the level of what he actually said)

Just saw this. Sorry about the typo.

Jay said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.

But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh put his hands on Ford, got too rough and did things that were out of character for him, and had no recollection of it the next day.

For all I know, it is.

The possibility isn’t evidence, though, and the reason I have difficulty with her story is that she remembers literally almost nothing else about the event. I’ve heard both “trauma makes you remember” and “trauma makes you forget”. Either (both?) can be true depending on the person. It’s just not reliable testimony, all due respect to Dr. Ford.

I do find it hard to believe that someone could be sexually assaulted and not remember the date and place it happened. But I am no expert on the memories of victims of sexual assault.

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

Don’t forget that someone can also straight up lie about it.

Yes they can.

Jay said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.

It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.

How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

I was wondering when you were going to post again. Just to be clear the 3 posts you quoted were about the woman(women) that confronted the Senator on the elevator earlier today, they were not about Ford and Kavanaugh. I don’t know what was so shocking about what I said. We know nothing about the woman(women) that confronted that Senator.

It was just an expression

“Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.” is just an expression?

pleasehello said:

By telling him why it’s unlikely that these women are crisis actors.

Do you know something about these women that confronted Senator Flake in the elevator that I don’t?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Warbler said:
Even if he did lose some of his memory while drunk, it doesn’t prove he assaulted her.

Do you even realize how low you and the republicans have just set the bar for being a supreme court justice!?

Me and Republicans? Please don’t include me with them. I think my own thoughts.

So it’s acceptable for a supreme court appointee to have had past problems with alcohol,

Yes, if they are truly in the past and not in the present.

even if they lie by denying it,

Maybe not.

and even in the presence of sworn testimony by a respected professor that said drunkenness led to sexual assault, so long as that particular assault can’t be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don’t know.

CatBus said:

Trident said:

Well she could be. I mean its not like hiring actors has never been done.

But I’m not sure how likely that is either. I guess if someone recognized her and tied her to some acting guild that would do.

And the probability of hiring an actor who just happened to also be a sexual assault survivor is significant as well. “Hired activist prop” is not a 100% overlap with “not a survivor”.

True, she could be a hired activist and a sexual assault survivor, or she could be a sexual assault survivor and not a hired actor or she could be some actor and not a sexual assault survivor, or she could just be some nut. We have no idea which.

pleasehello said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

Thanks for your thoughtful response and attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue. Exactly what this thread has been missing.

10/10

His was a thoughtful response and an attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

Ahahahahaha holy shit Warbler.

I was wondering when you were going to post again. Just to be clear the 3 posts you quoted were about the woman(women) that confronted the Senator on the elevator earlier today, they were not about Ford and Kavanaugh. I don’t know what was so shocking about what I said. We know nothing about the woman(women) that confronted that Senator.

SilverWook said:

Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?

Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Everyone is questioning whether Ford is mis-remembering.

Just so it is clear, I wasn’t talking about Ford in these last few posts, I was referring to the woman(women?) that confronted the Senator in the Elevator earlier today.

But I don’t understand why nobody has brought up the possibility that Kavanaugh is mis-remembering? That seems far more likely to me, since multiple people have said that he had a history of getting drunk and it affecting his personality. It also isn’t uncommon for people who were drunk to not remember what they did while they were drunk.

Even if he did lose some of his memory while drunk, it doesn’t prove he assaulted her.

If it can be shown that in fact he was often drunk, then the “he-said-she-said” balance would seem to tip in HER favor.

It has to be more than just drunk, it has to be that he was often so drunk that it effected his memory to the point that he could sexually assault someone without remembering it. Again, just because he has some periods where he lost his memory due to extreme drunkenness, doesn’t prove he sexually assaulted her.

What I don’t understand is how everyone is going on about how the memory works of someone who is sexually assaulted, how someone could remember the who, but the where or when. Yet no one seems to be asking just how does the memory of someone extremely drunk work? How possible is it to get extremely drunk and sexually assault someone and not remember it, to have to recollection of it at all. I would think that I might forget some details, but I think I remember that I did something extremely bad, I’d think I’d at least remember considering doing it. I don’t think I’d totally forget it though. Might be nice if they did someone research on that.

CatBus said:

Victims of sexual assault are everywhere, they’re just more likely to talk to you about the weather than their assault, so you’d never know under most circumstances. Even if they’re your mother, sister, or daughter. 56% of Native American women have reported experiencing sexual violence. Lower rates for other demographic groups, but it’s not an uncommon crime anywhere.

I don’t necessarily dispute any of that. It doesn’t mean the woman the that confronted the Senator was telling the truth(it doesn’t mean she was lying either). I bet people whom are not victims of sexual assault are also everywhere.

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

the important thing is that women have to earn the right to be believed, am i right?

I still don’t know what your point is. I don’t automatically believe total strangers be they men or women(nor do I automatically assume they are liars)

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

yeah, they love to play the victim, am i right?

I don’t know what your point is. We know nothing about this woman that confronted the Senator. We have no idea if she is a victim or sexual assault or not. She could be some nut. Or someone in the Dems put her up to it. Who knows.

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

pleasehello said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I support citizens confronting their bought-and-paid-for, fraudulent representatives.

I doubt that the lady who confronted him is from Arizona.

His votes still have the power to disrupt all of our lives.

Yeah, but he represents the overwhelmingly conservative state of Arizona. He’s more beholden to them than some lady who corners him in a elevator.

When you physically block the elevator, you’ve crossed the line.

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

I can help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

i can’t help but wonder if all the senators are really senators or just some sort of actor.

Pretty sure they are all really senators. It is kinda difficult to fake being a senator. They each have to run for state wide election. Their faces are well known in their states.

Any female can say they are a sexual assault survivor.

I can’t help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.

This is insane.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sexual-assault-survivors-confront-flake-elevator-support-kavanaugh-144720980.html

Where the hell was security?

CatBus said:
I have no idea if Gorsuch did something inappropriate in high school.

I’m sure he did do something inappriopriate…

What makes you so certain? Had there been some sort of accusation made against him that I don’t know about?

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure.

Should they make efforts behind doors to investigate? Yes.

Should they have referred the matter to the FBI and Chairman of the Committee right away? Yes.

Should the FBI be allowed to investigate now? Yes, I don’t see a good reason not to. Seems like the only excuse they can find for not allowing the FBI to investigate now is the fact that the Dems should have given to the FBI sooner. Well the question isn’t really what should have happened earlier, it’s what should happen now. I see no reason to not let the FBI investigate. If there is (other than that should have been done earlier), pleaese tell me.

The FBI would do what the Committee is responsible and able to do: follow leads and interview witnesses. The essential role of the FBI in a nomination process is to identify potential issues for Congress. I don’t know whether the FBI could subpoena witnesses who do not want to testify in this kind of situation, but the Committee can. The Democrats aim is to (at least) delay and that is what Republicans are fighting against.

But if a delay is what is needed to be able to investigate these claims thoroughly and justly, why not do it?

That is why Grassley isn’t subpoenaing witnesses. It’s why the White House isn’t asking for a halt in the process to allow the FBI to take over. There is the idea that even if Kavanaugh is innocent (as Republicans are apt to believe) then allowing a drawn-out investigation about an alleged event 36 years ago is unlikely to clear Kavanaugh. So for them it’s just a big waste of time.

I don’t see how investigating finding out more info about these claims is waste. Maybe it won’t uncover anything new or important, but maybe it will. I say in the interest of justice, do it.

The idea today was allowing the only potentially credible witness against him to say everything she wanted and to hear Kavanaugh’s denial to provide a opportunity to evaluate credibility. If there were any other solid evidence or witness to back up the claims, that would have been presented too.

Why about this other guy that was there. Shouldn’t he testify before they vote?

The FBI investigation idea does look tempting, with the hope that there is some evidence somewhere that would definitely resolve the issue one way or another. Right now that looks unlikely.

I say in the interest of justice, do it.

What about the other accusations? shouldn’t they be investigated too?

Questions lurking in the background include: why would someone with as an otherwise impeccable background have been a violent sexual maniac that one time?

It might be more than one time. There two other women accusing him of wrong doing.

If the allegation is true, how does that relate to who he has been in the 35 years since and his qualifications for the job on the Court?

If the allegation is true, he is guilty of sexual assault. In the minds of many that would automatically disqualify him. I’d be very uncomfortable having a someone guilty of sexual assault on the US Supreme Court. Maybe he has changed since then, but maybe he hasn’t. He was never brought to justice for it and this woman suffered serious mental trauma and had to have therapy. Can we really find no one more suitable? (this is all assuming the allegation is true).

You return repeatedly to the idea of justice but the FBI investigation would not be a criminal investigation and would yield no conclusion.

But an FBI investigate could yield more information and evidence, yes? Such info and evidence could aid the Senators in making their decision, yes? So why not do it?

Criminal charges could be pursued in Maryland, if anyone were interested in “justice” as that has been traditionally defined.

Well I am interested in getting as much info and evidence as reasonably possible before the Senate decides whether or not to put this guy on the US Supreme Court. This includes info and evidence for both sides. I fail to see what is wrong with that.

Instead we have his name dragged through the mud on charges that are very difficult to disprove even if false. Until and unless Maryland pursues charges and convicts him, he is not someone guilty of sexual assault.

Well, unless you want to hold off on the confirmation until Maryland due process plays out (and statute of limitations may play a role there), the Senate will have to make a decision without the benefit of a criminal trial. I know he has been dragged through the mud, but should the Senate have just ignored the accusation? Yes he wasn’t convicted(yet), that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. OJ wasn’t convicted, a lot of people still think he is a murderer.