This user has been banned.
Yeah because with the prequels it was more unified that they were disappointing whereas with the Disney movies some of us actually like them? Yeah much more fun
With the prequels, I could dislike them without being considered sexist. I could be angry at Lucas and hate various characters without being considered toxic.
Star Wars used to be more fun.
Considering this site was made in 2003, I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion.
but Star Wars fandom was in a better place before Disney. It is also silly to pretend - pretending is all the rage, especially pretend rage - that the recent movies haven’t had a deleterious impact here that the prequels didn’t really have.
true, very true.
I’ve not slept for 3 weeks.
How can you stay awake for that long?
Your obsession with the man is unhealthy.
Jordan Peterson isn’t the only person he is obsessed with.
are you purposefully missing the point warb?
What point would that be?
I sense mod intervention soon…
I wouldn’t be surprised.
If I molest myself and then make a public accusation, would any of you believe me?
I bet if I was a girl some of you would say it didn’t happen.
Yeah, that’s right, that is just what I would do. ha ha.
yeah, that’s what i meant, thanks
except I never said they must be paid actresses. I said I wondered if they are were.
see warb that kind of thnking it what made women not want to come out and accuse people of anything ever.
What kind of thinking? That humans sometimes don’t tell the truth???
in this case yeah, in some ways.
It is an inarguable fact that humans sometimes lie. Deal with it.
btw Possessed you have me pegged very wrong.
I can’t help but wonder why you even continue to post here.
I’ve been here for over 15 years. Old times sake, and I guess I am in some way addicted.
see warb that kind of thnking it what made women not want to come out and accuse people of anything ever.
What kind of thinking? That humans sometimes don’t tell the truth???
I can’t help wondering if she really is a sexual assault survivor or some sort of actor.
This is the original statement that set everyone off. I said “I can’t help wondering”. That is not an accusation or an assumption that the women were actors.
The way everyone reacted you would have thought I said something like “the b____es probably had it coming”. Sheesh.
The left has joined the right on the crazy train and people’s beliefs align more with their ideology than an honest assessment of the facts.
You are so right about that.
Warbler you should really have a beer man
Yeah.
It’s hard not to conclude that both the Senate and the White House are working very, very hard to prevent people from actually performing the investigation that could be used to clear Kavanaugh, and to wonder what sort of advantage such a heavily biased process could possibly give to an innocent man.
What do you think they could possibly find at this point to clear him? Short of a plane ticket stub and passport stamp that shows he was out of the country that entire summer, I doubt there’s anything that would prove to any Democrat he’s innocent.
“Clearing” means finding no evidence of guilt (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). So by not finding anything, they clear him (that doesn’t necessarily disprove Ford’s accusation either, it just fails to prove it). However, if they don’t find anything because they were instructed not to investigate, that’s another matter entirely. That’s the difference between “not guilty” and “coverup”. And “coverup” just screams “guilty”, whether it’s true or not.
Innocent or guilty outside the legal definition is a partisan playground. The FBI cleared Clinton of any criminal wrongdoing with regard to e-mails, and most people are fine with that. And clearly there’s still a fringe of people who think she’s guilty of something. Certainly the same will be true for Kavanaugh. But “all Democrats”? That’s extreme. It’s like saying all Republicans believe in Mailghazi. It’s just not true.
The press and Democrats were particularly up in arms about this issue precisely because it wasn’t being investigated. With an investigation – one not circumscribed by the White House – people will go back to disliking his politics, or his propensity to commit perjury and spout conspiracy theories. They’re not going to start liking him, that’s fairly certain, and they will continue to say bad and even mean things about him, but this particular issue would fade in importance. If they actually find evidence disproving the accusers’ testimony entirely, the issue would drop to Pizzagate levels of support among Democrats.
I agree it’s unlikely they’ll find much. There’s a little more evidence to sift through in this case than a “he-said/she-said” scenario, but it is just a little more. Failing to find anything at all (most likely scenario), he’ll be cleared, but Ford’s accusation will remain plausible. There’s a legal distinction between “innocent” and “not guilty”, and people may have a hard time finding him innocent. But the legal process would nevertheless have found him “not guilty”, assuming that legal process is permitted to happen… which is unfortunately still very much in question.
I’ve seen very few Democrats, here or elsewhere, talk about Kavanaugh as if he’s an innocent man. Or even the possibility he’s innocent. There are always exceptions, but Kavanaugh’s guilt seems to be a very partisan affair.
😮 Jay! What an irresponsible, disgusting, misogynist, nonsensical statement! I really hope no victims of sexual assault had to read that!
I agree that Warb takes it too seriously,
Story of my life.
It hasn’t been fun for me for quite some time.
whatever.
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.
You don’t get to decide who your words offend.
I do have the right to have an opinion on what is and isn’t reasonable to be offended about. The mere mention that something that is possible is in fact possible is not something that should offend anyone.
What’s offensive and what isn’t is entirely subjective. You’re free to say what you want and others are free to be offended.
So if I said that I offended at the mere fact that you are breathing, that wouldn’t be ridiculous? I would have the right to be offended by such and you have no right to tell me I’m being ridiculous? You’d have no right to tell me that it is my problem if I am offended at your breathing? And if you did, ChainsawAsh would be right in telling you “You don’t get to decide who your words offend”?
I realize that being offended at what I said isn’t the same as being offended at the mere fact that someone is breathing. The point is, where is the line? Who gets to decide where the line is?
It is an inarguable fact that sometimes some people get offended at things that shouldn’t offend them. It is inarguable that some people get offended at things that are ridiculous to be offended at.
Being offended that others are offended, which is what you seem to be, is hypocritical.
I’m pissed more than offended.
Believing in due process means assuming everyone’s innocence until proven otherwise. That includes the women who approached Sen. Flake in the elevator.
So you assume people whom are total strangers are telling you the gospel truth until proven otherwise. Jay, I have bridge I want to sell you.
Due process is for when someone is accused of something. No one accused the two women who confronted Flake of anything. Mentioning a possibility is not the same as an accusation. Also mentioning that two women whom are total strangers that I know nothing about might, just might not be entirely truthful is not anywhere near as ridiculous as mentions that it might be possible that something is faked which requires thousands if not hundreds of thousands to be “in on it”
You had no reason to suggest they might be paid actors and you’re being called out for it.
It was possible, I mentioned the possibility. We are talking politics. It would not surprise me at all for some political group to hire people to put pressure on a politician and create a bad look if he doesn’t do what they want. This has less to do with not trusting women than it does with not trusting anyone involved in a political stunt.
I was sexually taken advantage as a young lad (16-17 somewhere in there) (assaulted is a strong word, it wasn’t physically forced more like mental manipulation) but I didn’t bother telling anybody because I knew I’d just get laughed at or made fun of about it.
I’m sorry this happened to you.
ditto.
Nobody is saying you’re responsible for anyone’s suffering. You’re the one who gets offended at the drop of a hat around here, and you can’t even grasp that others might be offended by a poorly worded statement on your part?
No, I can’t grasp idea that it is offense to mention the possibility that total strangers I know nothing about might not be all they claim to be. It happens. Humans lie and are dishonest, especially when it comes to politics.
Why? Do you want to be banned?
it is not really that I want to be banned it is that I have just about gone passed the point of caring whether I am banned or not. I’m fed up with how things have been on here recently.
If it is perceived as callous too bad. Whatever suffering whichever women have gone through is not my fault. People shouldn’t be offended at the mere mention that it is possible that two women we have never seen or hear of before and know nothing about could have been put up to what they did yesterday. I can’t believe I even have to be explaining that!
fine, ban me.
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.
You don’t get to decide who your words offend.
I do have the right to have an opinion on what is and isn’t reasonable to be offended about. The mere mention that something that is possible is in fact possible is not something that should offend anyone.