[Newfie]

Dis,
I would not go so far as to condem all therapist. There are some who are good, and not all therapist are competent. There are therapist who are incompetent or who just don’t work well with some clients.

And there are some who willingfully use their position for their own purposes which can mean a lot of different things. There is at least one SOB that, well......perhaps I should just go no further.

[Cog]

The deal about the therapy notes. When Ford was questioned about them, she was unsure whether she gave the Washington Post a copy of them or if she gave them a summary of them. We aren't talking about an event 36 years ago, we are talking about 3 months ago.

Either way, her lawyers and her have refused to provide the senate judicial committee a copy of them. So what are her therapists notes worth? Zip, zero, nada.

If you are basing the validity of an accusation on an event that happened in 1982 on a therapy session in 2012, you already have a weak position. You invalidate that accusation completely, by not allowing the senate to look at these alleged therapy notes.

[Plantagenet]

her lawyers and her have refused to provide the senate judicial committee a copy of them. So what are her therapists notes worth? Zip, zero, nada.

Actually, her therapists notes prove that Ford is lying.

During her therapy session she said she was assaulted by four boys....with no mention of Kavanaugh.

Now she has changed her story so there are two boys.....and one of them is Kavanaugh.

That's why she won't turn the notes over.....they prove she is lying. This woman is a total flake.

She even lied under oath about being a psychologist. Under California law in order to call yourself a psychologist you have to be accredited by the state and its a crime to pretend you are a psychologist when you are not. She is not. She is in a bit of a panic about this--- her bio notes back at Stanford have been mysteriously altered and her on-line claim to being a psychologist is now gone. Now she says only that she is an affiliate.....which in University talk means she is a hanger-on. Not even a faculty member and certainly not a psychologist.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Wow. You guys are throwing EVERYTHING you can think of at Blasey Ford. Keep trying.

[Cog]

Doesn't matter what she claims her therapist notes say if she won't release them to the judiciary committe or sign a release so the fbi can question the therapist about them. They are just claims without any evidence.

@jedirider Do you believe an accusation from anyone should be believed, without question, if the accuser will not provide evidence that the accusation is true?

Ok jedrider you are a rapist. Prove you are not.

[jedrider]

Just take it for what it is. Same as when climate deniers keep asking for more evidence. There is a motive behind that. That is what I'm accusing you (plural) of.

[Cog]

Do you think it's appropriate to ask for evidence before you trash a person's reputation and life?

On what evidence do you deny being a rapist jedrider? Since all accusations MUST be believed.

And unlike your climate change analogy, 0% of Ford's witnesses agree with her narrative of the events.

We all know what the real objection to Kavanaugh is. It's not getting drunk or groping a girl at a party. It's the fact that he is a semi-conservative judge. That changes the current balance of the court and the left wants no part of that.

[jedrider]

So, you admit Cog, via omission, that you are solely motivated by your desire to have an extremely conservative, partisan, judge to the Supreme Court and not by the merits of Ford's testimony. OR, perhaps, you think women are going too far in accusing men? So, which one is it?

[Plantagenet]

PROOF THAT FORD IS LYING

Ford claims that after the assault she called a friend on a cell phone.

But In 1982, when Ford claims this all took place, cell phones were not yet available for purchase. They would not go on sale to the general pubic until late 1984.

Ergo FORD IS either misremembering or LYING. Either way its bogus.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Yes, that is all possible. I'm not saying that it isn't. The Republican reaction has been so extreme, maybe, blown up out of proportion by the media, but I get to watch the same info on youtube. So, why is that? (I'm just asking questions, BTW.) The reactions are as if they are all real accusations. Everyone had a good time when they were young, but why this strong reaction?

Part of my gut tells me that this reaction is extreme and is due to either 'extreme partisanship' OR 'extreme fear' of feminism.

Either way, you got me well entertained

[dissident]

So it is the Republicans that are blowing it out of proportion? Wow. That some set of partisan blinkers you have there. It is the Democrats that are attempting to lynch Kavanaugh with their parade of false witnesses. It is hard to take anyone who claims that all accusations have a grain of truth seriously. That is just the usual anti-science magical thinking that afflicts humans and accounts for basically all of the world's problems.

[jedrider]

Clarence Thomas. How the hell did he get on the Supreme Court? I suppose the witness was exposed as false there, too.

[Cog]

It was exposed as a high tech lynching of an uppity black man just like Clarence Thomas told the senate. Black conservatives are referred to by Dems as uncle Tom's.

The Senate Dems could not care less about this woman. Most of them, including Senate minority leader Schumer, declared on the day Kavanaugh was nominated, they would oppose him.

On July 9th, two months before the hearings, Schumer said" I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything I have".

So tell me jedrider. Without hearing a word from Kavanaugh, why was Schumer opposed to him?

[jedrider]

Schumer opposed Kavanaugh because he was a political operative. He seems to have been involved in several extreme Republican legal wranglings.

So, for Clarence they ignored Anita because the #MeToo stuff wasn't yet going on back then. Yeah, it must have been Schumer that instigated all these women to join the #MeToo chorus!

[Thomas was an intellectual zero AFAIK. I guess that was OK with Democrats back then. Shame on them.]

[Plantagenet]

Schumer opposed Kavanaugh because he was a political operative.

If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, I suspect he will harbor a deep hatred for the Ds as a result of the way the Ds have connived in smearing him.

What goes around comes around.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

Trump accuser #3---the one claiming she was gang raped and then went to 10 more parties where others were gang raped----has just recanted her claims. Hard to know if the FBI will even bother to interview her now.

i-dont-know-what-he-did-kavanaugh-accuser-backtracks-claims-nbc-interview

Hopefully she now will be prosecuted for lying about Kavanaugh in her sworn affadavit. Jeez this is a sleazy game the Ds are playing.

Cheers!

[careinke]

So, you admit Cog, via omission, that you are solely motivated by your desire to have an extremely conservative, partisan, judge to the Supreme Court and not by the merits of Ford's testimony. OR, perhaps, you think women are going too far in accusing men? So, which one is it?

I'm not even sure why I am listening to the above rapist. I think I won't, I'll just yell Rapist Rapist on every post he makes. Maybe I should notify his friends too.

How you feelin jed??

[jedrider]

So, you admit Cog, via omission, that you are solely motivated by your desire to have an extremely conservative, partisan, judge to the Supreme Court and not by the merits of Ford's testimony. OR, perhaps, you think women are going too far in accusing men? So, which one is it?

I'm not even sure why I am listening to the above rapist. I think I won't, I'll just yell Rapist Rapist on every post he makes. Maybe I should notify his friends too.

How you feelin jed??

What I don't understand is what this has to do with Clinton? Why did Kavanaugh bring up Clinton? He should have just said I think she is crazy and/or mistaken. That would have been sufficient for a 'he said/she said" confrontation. That's actually what Long John, oh, I forget, Clarence did and it, evidently, worked for him. Still, the outrage in ALL directions is weird, just WEIRD, I tell you

[I'll answer my own questions. You partisans can't even bring yourself to admit any complicity in all this. Kavanaugh was actually feeling GUILTY of unduly harassing Bill Clinton when it was his turn for the accusations. This man has skeletons in his head.]

[careinke]

So, you admit Cog, via omission, that you are solely motivated by your desire to have an extremely conservative, partisan, judge to the Supreme Court and not by the merits of Ford's testimony. OR, perhaps, you think women are going too far in accusing men? So, which one is it?

I'm not even sure why I am listening to the above rapist. I think I won't, I'll just yell Rapist Rapist on every post he makes. Maybe I should notify his friends too.

How you feelin jed??

What I don't understand is what this has to do with Clinton? Why did Kavanaugh bring up Clinton? He should have just said I think she is crazy and/or mistaken. That would have been sufficient for a 'he said/she said" confrontation. That's actually what Long John, oh, I forget, Clarence did and it, evidently, worked for him. Still, the outrage in ALL directions is weird, just WEIRD, I tell you

[I'll answer my own questions. You partisans can't even bring yourself to admit any complicity in all this. Kavanaugh was actually feeling GUILTY of unduly harassing Bill Clinton when it was his turn for the accusations. This man has skeletons in his head.]

But Clinton was a rapist, just like you.

[Cog]

Kavanaugh was involved in the Ken Starr ivestigation of Bill Clinton.The Democrats haven't forgotten that.

But all of this is irrelevant. The Dems don't want another conservative on the court and will by all means necessary try to prevent it.