Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Great time to make jokes. I present to you Rep. Ralph Norman (R) from Rock Hill, SC:
https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_aa70b77c-bcf5-11e8-a7c7-ff6a511cd2db.html
I bet that got so many FWDs.
Great time to make jokes. I present to you Rep. Ralph Norman (R) from Rock Hill, SC:
https://www.postandcourier.com/poli...cle_aa70b77c-bcf5-11e8-a7c7-ff6a511cd2db.html
Serious question for those posters older than I (hint: all of you): who was the most controversial SCOTUS candidate nominated by a Democratic President?
Serious question for those posters older than I (hint: all of you): who was the most controversial SCOTUS candidate nominated by a Democratic President?
So because a proofreader didn't catch the omission of the word "not", the New York Times is less reliable than 5 viral internet rumors? Got it, I think I understand the universe Angus is living in.
Why not let impartial law enforcement take the statements? fucking bizarre
Oh shut the fuck up and stay on topic.
This is Ford and Kavanaugh.
Goodness.
I’ll put this here to maybe head off our (fortunately) small number of folks susceptible to disinformation.
Debunking 5 Viral Rumors About Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh’s Accuser
Ding... Ding... Ding.
Just an innocuous mistake by the 'Newspaper of Record" leaving out the "not" in the story. No biggie.
Does anyone know where the correction was noted in the print edition?
Correction: September 18, 2018
An earlier version of this article misstated what Mark Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said that he does not remember the episode, not that he does.
A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 19, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Court Nominee’s Accuser Demands Inquiry by F.B.I.. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
I’m pretty sure Angus has the print edition of the NYT. Otherwise he wouldn’t know if the error that was already corrected online made it into the print edition. He was very sure the error made it into print. I’m sure he’ll take a picture of his Wednesday paper and post it for confirmation.
You republicans put a known serial adulter, a known sexual harasser and an admitted sexual assailant into the White House and now you are trying to put a possible wanna be rapist into the scotus. I see no problem with taking a few extra days or weeks to investigate this Kavanaugh shithead after what you fucking moronic assholes did to the presidency.
Let's see...senate vs FBI. Wonder who "investigates" better?