Header Image (book)


Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Hypocrisy On Full Display

(Please scroll down for other material.  Active thread below)

Proverb: "those living in glass houses should not throw stones":

Related: Mitch McConnell says the Senate will vote 'this week' on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (dated October 1, 2018).

Also see: Five Devastating Hits on Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility from Rachel Mitchell's Memo. Important read!


  1. Sums up this soviet-style kangaroo court hysteria quite well.

    1. No it doesn't. The situation doesn't lend itself to a broad brush.

      1. Corey Booker - He was describing an event he regrets. One which changed him. You may doubt Booker's sincerity but there hasn't been any reason to do so.

      2. Keith Ellison - There is a photo going around on fringe right sites of a horribly bruised woman which has been demonstrated to be false. The claim against Ellison comes down to a video which the son of the victim claims shows abuse but has somehow disappeared.
      In other words, nothing substantial.

      3. Hillary Clinton - Derangement syndrome. Get real.

      4. Bill Clinton - A sleaze. Was Juanita Broaddrick sufficiently credible to unseat the POTUS? I think so but the environment for victims was much different than the present.

      5. Ted Kennedy - That was a criminal matter. It did end any hope he had of a presidential run.
      The privilege of the rich hasn't sufficiently abated but it is not a left/right issue.

    2. 1. ah... so if the man regrets it, he's off the hook!

      2. So, if a fringe site exaggerates something, that totally invalidates the woman's story?

      3. We're supposed to ignore the Clinton War Room and Hillary chairing the "Bimbo Eruption" Team?

      4. So the "environment" and the times matters, but facts, logic and corroborating evidence and witnesses do not? (why doesn't this apply to historical figures and their history and monuments?)

      5. I have yet to see Ted Kennedy monuments pulled down and destroyed (figurative and literal) by screaming mobs of #METOO pussyhats, so that means you outraged leftwing nutballs are still giving Senator "Waitress Sandwich" a pass.

      You rabid maoists need to post these rules somewhere so those of us who are sane can attempt to keep up with your Outrage kabuki.

    3. 1. I know you're familiar with the concept of contrition.
      I believe it can be transformative. Apparently you do not.

      2. No it doesn't but if you claim a video was recorded, it's damn suspicious when you can't produce it.

      3. Been reading Gateway Pundit ?

      4. The culture of the times certainly are serious determinants and you'd be an ass to deny it. As I said, I believe Broaddrick. Don't twist my statement.

      5. What would you have done? There aren't any monuments to be taken down and Chappaquiddick is solidly part of his legacy.

    4. I believe in contrition. The rabid leftwing #MeToo mob does not, unless its one of their heroes. The leftwing horde has no principles

      What happened to "every woman must be believed?" Face it, Ellison is too important to the left to be handed over to the mobs and guillotined.

      Kennedy is still a deity in the Democrat pantheon. You're all hypocrites.

      Hillary and Bimbo Eruptions, from the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy at the Amazon Post:


    5. Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

    6. Please, be my guest. I bring facts and logic and he regurgitates red propaganda.

    7. Actually, I was enjoying watching you work.
      As to contrition, how can K be sorry for something he didn't do?
      She has no credibility. That means she is not believable..
      No one close to her stands beside her.
      Many who know him, stand by Kavanaugh.

    8. Ed,
      No one close to her stands beside her.

      Very revealing.

    9. Ed, the matter of contrition relates to the spun allegations against Corey Booker.

      I too enjoy watching Silverfiddle dance. He's pretty obviously having trouble understanding that there is every reason to question a charge that purports to have evidence when said evidence can't be produced as is the case with Emerson.

    10. Here comes Ducky... Did your corner man give you smelling salts? You're still punch drunk and incoherent.

    11. You speak of "evidence?" We're still waiting for at least one shred against Judge Kavanaugh.

  2. A few questions:

    Do any pictures or video exist of Dr. Ford speaking publicly or delivering a lecture in a classroom setting?

    Does she normally talk in that scared, vulnerable little girl voice?

    Does she normally wear oversized glasses that maker her appear small and vulnerable>

    Is her normal demeanor apologetic, meek and compliant?

  3. I don't understand that the full report written by the Prosecutor Mitchell hasn't been reported. Only the summaries. It is devastating to the case.
    At the time Mitchell was asking the questions of Ford, it appeared to make little headway. In retrospect she knew exactly what she was about. I hope everyone reads it.
    SF.. Great questions that I asked as well. The ones I found were without glasses. Strange that the closeups show the glasses apparently hard to see through - so dirty.

    1. Communist propagandists in the Infotainment Media Complex are already marching out a parade of "experts" to trash Mitchell's report.

    2. I am disappointed that none of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were bold enough to ask Dr. Ford directly "Why are you wasting our time with this bullshit?"

      Seriously. The woman looks like Garth Algar had too many Vampire Facelifts so that he wrinkles have become scar tissue. There was no Viagra back then, so gang rape seems as unlikely as it would have been physically impossible. That woman couldn't arouse a porn star being paid to bump fugly.

      "Why are you wasting our time with this bullshit?" Every senator should have asked.

    3. Ah, Beamish. That comment brings back memories of your brilliant satires.

    4. I just needed the Democrats to get back to being more repulsive than Trump. ;)

    5. TC,
      Yeah, the Dems are really "showing their tails" (as my grandmother used to say about anyone who was behaving in an asinine manner).

      The word repulsive only begins to describe the current pack of Dems.

    6. You don't become a US Senator by expressing candor, beamish.

    7. AOW,

      Trump still has the taint of repulsiveness that comes with having been a Democrat after 1964. Still, downstream from the tap and all that.


      They already are Senators. No becoming a Senator necessary. That they arw not voting to censure and expel every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee just shows how much Trump has removed the balls from the GOP.

    8. The GOPe had balls after 1865. Who knew?

    9. It's enough that the deep staters at the NSA are presenting Donald Trump with "marching orders from Putin" that are convincing enough that he believes they are the real thing, keeping most of our international politics on an even keel where it matters. Sure, it's bad for our intel agencies to exploit a retard for national gain, but if you wanna make omelets sometimes you gotta break a few Saddam Husseins. They will probably bring back Mythbusters to do an episode on the fabled existence of a White House staffer who doesn't think Trump is an idiot. (Spoilers: Busted)

      It's time for the Republicans in the Senate to GO TO WAR on the Democratic Party the way Reagan cut off wheat to the Russians and told them to go eat their missile fuel.

    10. Yes, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Jeff Flake will certainly be at the forefront of Beamish Charge on the DNC! Who knows, maybe they'll light a fire under Turtle Boy, for a change.

  4. Read today that c. ford co-authored a paper in 2008 on using self-hypnosis to create a memory. Good enuf to pass a lie detector test with.....

    1. The lie detector test that asked two questions answered "no"?


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective