Listening to the Brett Kavanaugh thing and couldn't help but start wondering, has no man ever been sexually harassed or assaulted? Surely in the last forty years or so that has happened. Can it be that a man just hasn't decided to tell or are we, I put myself in that group, me too, just waiting for a women to be nominated to the supreme court? Senator Kamala Harris has released a video about Brett that is less than factual, in fact, it s under close scrutiny from both parties. There is a rumor she is being groomed for the presidency. She does head some committee concerning women's rights in the congress. Strangely there is no counterpart to that group, you know, a committee concerning the rights of men. But, then again men are never sexually harassed, it just doesn't happen right? Hmm, well one can always hope, isn't that the thinking?
My questioning is if the roles were reversed would the Democrats be insisting on an FBI investigation and a delay on the vote for supreme court justice? Well, what do you think? There is no denying that are plenty of women in powerful positions, so opportunity exists. Surely at some time in the last forty years or so a man felt " uncomfortable " or " pressured " in the workplace. Or are men just supposed to allow all that without a second thought. I mean, we're men for Gods sake, that's all we want is sex! You know I believe that I was at a party, somewhere, at some time, and some girl touched me inappropriately! Of course we were all drinking so I don't remember much, but I remember that face! If she ever runs for political office or wins the lottery I'm telling! No need to say anything at this point, nothing to gain by that right now.
The big issue, as I hear the Democrats express it, is determining the character of this man. That's because they can be no criminal charges brought against Judge Kavanaugh even if there were video and audio evidence of the whole alleged incident. So basically what we are witnessing is a character assassination! What else could you call it? Unsubstantiated claims that we all know can never be proven or disproved without having a time machine. Also we must remember you can't apply 2018 sensibilities to actions taken in 1982. What I'm saying here is what was acceptable then may not be acceptable now or vice versa. Think of it this way, how many single mothers were running for political and social offices in 1982? What was thought of their character back then? Isn't that what all this " progress " is supposed to eliminate? The girls that were known as " loose " back in my day are now just " sexually active. " Their character isn't called into question about any of that is it? No, because it is 2018. So to say we are going to investigate his character is in reality just a prejudicial attempt to disqualify him. Just what standards of conduct are we going to say are good, better and best? I would call her character into question. Just what was a 15 year old girl doing at a party with seniors, drinking and unsupervised? Just what was her character then? 1982, a party girl? She didn't resist, her didn't scream and make a fuss, didn't go home crying and tell her parents? Why not? Probably because she didn't want her character known.
Now I hear she may not testify before congress after all. No, she is demanding an investigation before she does that. Last I knew you had to make accusations before an investigation was launched. If you're not willing to do that before the very bunch you want to order that investigation that calls your credibility into question, at least in my mind it does. I figure the deal is this, she wants the FBI to find evidence that doesn't exist. The FBI has, on four other occasions done background checks on Kavanaugh with no inkling of any wrongdoing or " bad " character traits. The whole thing is just designed to delay his confirmation, plain and simple. It is true it is far more difficult to impeach a sitting justice than to just allow him to be confirmed in the first place. Still, go ahead and confirm him. If the FBI uncovers credible evidence or proof sufficient to impeach him, impeach him. That's called being innocent until proven guilty. What I want to know is, how do you determine the character of a man? Where is the list? Or are we just going to wing it and say we think he may have, could have, maybe might have, or thought about it, so therefore his character is in question. I mean after all, he was 17 at the time, he should have known better than to be at any underage drinking party with another minor girl, definitely a character flaw that should disqualify him.
My questioning is if the roles were reversed would the Democrats be insisting on an FBI investigation and a delay on the vote for supreme court justice? Well, what do you think? There is no denying that are plenty of women in powerful positions, so opportunity exists. Surely at some time in the last forty years or so a man felt " uncomfortable " or " pressured " in the workplace. Or are men just supposed to allow all that without a second thought. I mean, we're men for Gods sake, that's all we want is sex! You know I believe that I was at a party, somewhere, at some time, and some girl touched me inappropriately! Of course we were all drinking so I don't remember much, but I remember that face! If she ever runs for political office or wins the lottery I'm telling! No need to say anything at this point, nothing to gain by that right now.
The big issue, as I hear the Democrats express it, is determining the character of this man. That's because they can be no criminal charges brought against Judge Kavanaugh even if there were video and audio evidence of the whole alleged incident. So basically what we are witnessing is a character assassination! What else could you call it? Unsubstantiated claims that we all know can never be proven or disproved without having a time machine. Also we must remember you can't apply 2018 sensibilities to actions taken in 1982. What I'm saying here is what was acceptable then may not be acceptable now or vice versa. Think of it this way, how many single mothers were running for political and social offices in 1982? What was thought of their character back then? Isn't that what all this " progress " is supposed to eliminate? The girls that were known as " loose " back in my day are now just " sexually active. " Their character isn't called into question about any of that is it? No, because it is 2018. So to say we are going to investigate his character is in reality just a prejudicial attempt to disqualify him. Just what standards of conduct are we going to say are good, better and best? I would call her character into question. Just what was a 15 year old girl doing at a party with seniors, drinking and unsupervised? Just what was her character then? 1982, a party girl? She didn't resist, her didn't scream and make a fuss, didn't go home crying and tell her parents? Why not? Probably because she didn't want her character known.
Now I hear she may not testify before congress after all. No, she is demanding an investigation before she does that. Last I knew you had to make accusations before an investigation was launched. If you're not willing to do that before the very bunch you want to order that investigation that calls your credibility into question, at least in my mind it does. I figure the deal is this, she wants the FBI to find evidence that doesn't exist. The FBI has, on four other occasions done background checks on Kavanaugh with no inkling of any wrongdoing or " bad " character traits. The whole thing is just designed to delay his confirmation, plain and simple. It is true it is far more difficult to impeach a sitting justice than to just allow him to be confirmed in the first place. Still, go ahead and confirm him. If the FBI uncovers credible evidence or proof sufficient to impeach him, impeach him. That's called being innocent until proven guilty. What I want to know is, how do you determine the character of a man? Where is the list? Or are we just going to wing it and say we think he may have, could have, maybe might have, or thought about it, so therefore his character is in question. I mean after all, he was 17 at the time, he should have known better than to be at any underage drinking party with another minor girl, definitely a character flaw that should disqualify him.
No comments:
Post a Comment