Abuse accustations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

No, it wasn't random. I brought up the political persuasions of the websites/media you were linking, because they often seem to be linked to the right. Then you took it in a different direction, probably to avoid the question?

[Wales-Bales]

No, it wasn't random. I brought up the political persuasions of the websites/media you were linking, because they often seem to be linked to the right. Then you took it in a different direction, probably to avoid the question?

Everything in the report was factual. It this your way of trying to discredit facts?

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Everything in the report was factual. It this your way of trying to discredit facts?

Wrong, and no. I pointed out the right wing media in your posts because you have a habit of laughing down your sleeve whenever someone posts something from the liberal media. The idea that someone from a right wing website (and yourself) might not be wholly objective seems to have passed you by.

[Wales-Bales]

Wrong, and no. I pointed out the right wing media in your posts because you have a habit of laughing down your sleeve whenever someone posts something from the liberal media. The idea that someone from a right wing website (and yourself) might not be wholly objective seems to have passed you by.

So, I post a report that sums up the factual consequences of the Kavenaugh case, and then you divert to some left wing website, where a former Michael Moore assistant is giving his OPINION on a totally unrelated matter.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

So, I post a report that sums up the factual consequences of the Kavenaugh case, and then you divert to some left wing website, where a former Michael Moore assistant is giving his OPINION on a totally unrelated matter.

Not factual; an interpretation. You'd be the first to discredit a story just by pointing to the source, so I was suggesting that posting reports from right wing websites, one of which is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party (and providing a link which possibly has evidence for that) might not be the way to proceed.

[Wales-Bales]

Not factual; an interpretation. You'd be the first to discredit a story just by pointing to the source, so I was suggesting that posting reports from right wing websites, one of which is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party (and providing a link which possibly has evidence for that) might not be the way to proceed.

An interpretation? Have 4 people been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for making stuff up, or haven't they?

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

An interpretation? Have 4 people been referred to the DOJ for criminal prosecution for making stuff up, or haven't they?

Of course! If a woman completely unrelated to Dr Ford makes a fictional accusation that no-one takes seriously then the entire Federalist piece must be entirely factual.