Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Surely there are fair judges with a clean past in America that both sides of the isle would be happy to vote through?
Surely there are fair judges with a clean past in America that both sides of the isle would be happy to vote through?
The republicans will only be happy with a Trump puppet who will do anything, no matter how immoral, to protect him from impeachment or future criminal charges.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely there are fair judges with a clean past in America that both sides of the isle would be happy to vote through?
There's a superfluous apostrophe in there.Did you like the 'drinking game' 'devils triangle' - in his diary? Or at least he said it was a drinking game...
TOP DEFINITION
Devils Triangle
A threesome with 1 woman and 2 men. It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality.
Larry: Did you hear that Eric and Brian were in a Devils Triangle with Sarah last night?
Brad: Yeah man, I did, what homo's.
Larry: No man, its cool, they didn't make eye contact.
#threesome#menage a trois#sex#threeway#orgy
There's a superfluous apostrophe in there.
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
'who's meaning'?Not sure about that. „Drinking game“ is one quote from Kavanaugh, and „devil‘s triangle“ is the name of a sex act, who‘s meaning I was trying to explain. Although also mentioned by Kavanaugh in his diary. Two separate things. In actual fact, there was one apostrophe too few, as there should have been one in „devils“. Would I pass my English O Level nowadays?
Not sure about that. „Drinking game“ is one quote from Kavanaugh, and „devil‘s triangle“ is the name of a sex act, who‘s meaning I was trying to explain. Although also mentioned by Kavanaugh in his diary. Two separate things. In actual fact, there was one apostrophe too few, as there should have been one in „devils“. Would I pass my English O Level nowadays?
'who's meaning'?
I’m not sure how to say that.. the meaning of which..?
You could say 'whose meaning' rather than 'who's meaning', though I'm not sure that's quite right either.I’m not sure how to say that.. the meaning of which..?
You could say 'whose meaning' rather than 'who's meaning', though I'm not sure that's quite right either.
Certainly no fan of the Clinton's and when they nominated Hillary I thought they'd picked the one candidate who could lose to Trump. Just so unlikeable and smarmy, giving this impression of superiority over everyone.
In terms of sexually predatory I'd say Bill and Don are probably about equal and would abuse their power in a heartbeat.
He's dead.
Or anyone with more than an ounce of morality.Just heard this on the radio. Pretty shocking. Playing on the fact that she only had one beer without even considering the possibility that the one beer had been spiked. I can’t understand how any self respecting woman could vote for this idiot, even before his latest rant. Or any self respecting man for that matter.
Or anyone with more than an ounce of morality.
As I said before, my cat was savagely attacked by a dog and killed in front of my eyes. It is ingrained in my memory forever.
Can't tell you what time of day it was though, or what day, or even what time of the year, or in fact, what year.
Trump has no idea what he is talking about. The traumatic incident itself gets cast in stone, but the periphery facts become hazy and fade.
This all is supposed to have happened decades ago.<snip> Don’t want to go into details but as you say a specific detail of a trauma from a traumatic experience gets ingrained in your memory and everything else becomes inconsequential to the point of irrelevant.
Yeah, tough one, but do get your point and there surely comes a time when nothing is proveable and is just one word against another.This all is supposed to have happened decades ago.
Shouldn't there be some Statute of Limitations on these claims?
If you don't report something within a reasonable time, you should lose the right to.
Yep. That thought had certainly crossed my mind and what happens in those sorts of cases (Harris and Savile) is that someone comes forward and you then feel brave enough to come forwards yourself, having previously been too scared to do so for fear of ridicule and non belief in your story.What is the term though? With limitations you could see Rolf Harris and his ilk walking free.
A lot of women don't report these things for fear of the type of response that has been seen here. Not being believed and / or being blamed.This all is supposed to have happened decades ago.
Shouldn't there be some Statute of Limitations on these claims?
Not thorough at all despite some senators saying it has been.A lot of women don't report these things for fear of the type of response that has been seen here. Not being believed and / or being blamed.
There's also very low conviction rates and having to go through the trauma of reliving it numerous times when being questioned or cross examined.
In reality in most cases there is no need fora statute of limitations as reporting to the police years later would lead to zero action.
Saying all that there is a big difference between not reporting something for those reasons and not mentioning it when you see the perpetrator moving towards becoming one of the most powerful people in the country with responsibility for setting laws regarding issues like this.
The fact that during their 'investigation' the FBI have not been allowed to speak to the victim, the accused or any of the witnesses says a lot about how thorough it has been.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?