Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Blasey Ford BLASTS SCOTUS Judge KAVANAUGH; She Speaks Out On ‘The View’ For The FIRST Time" video.

  1. She looks like a major makeover was undertaken.
    9
  2. Yup
    6
  3. It's not evident either way. Also, women do not like other women. Why the need to take sides? I don't. I didn't at the time of her testimony. Having said that, she has the burden of proof.
    6
  4. I've never forgotten that. Hill had material witnesses that Joey refused to call, literally present outside the chamber.
    5
  5. Others may have lied as well. I don't necessarily believe her, but to dismiss her is not realistic. Please.
    4
  6. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    4
  7. Sorry to hear she picked that discredited show to promote her book.
    3
  8. @nyetzdyec3391  No it's not. But have it your way. Moot point. Are you sure you aren't confusing this case with Johnny Depp? 😂
    2
  9.  @DrAlexanderHamilton  Wrong. I never said I believed her. I suspend judgment. It's obvious.
    1
  10.  @DrAlexanderHamilton  I'm not required to believe women. You are not required to learn how to read before commenting. You are just required to be categorical, ascerbic, and very quick to jeer. Oh, and be sure to impute views to other people that they obviously don't hold. The algorithm thanks you.
    1
  11.  @Nyet-Zdyes  It's not at all evident. But have it your way. In any case, as I've said, she had the burden of proof and statutes of limitations exist for a reason.
    1
  12. @nyetzdyec3391  "Evident" means "clear to the vision or understanding;" it comes from the Latin videre. If you accept something as true based on the best available information, that is a reasonable belief. That is not knowledge.
    1
  13.  @Nyet-Zdyes  "Evident" means "clear to the vision or understanding;" it comes from the Latin videre. If you accept something as true based on the best available information, that is a reasonable belief. That is not knowledge.
    1
  14. @nyetzdyec3391  You don't know what burden of proof means, hm? Okay, good bye . . .
    1
  15.  @derrickjoe1872  Who categorically said she was lying? Declining to corroborate an allegation is not the same.
    1
  16. @derrickjoe1872  Not at all. There is also suspending judgment in the matter. "It happened or it didn't" is not the same thing as I know whether it happened or didn't happen. I don't know --- nor do you. Having said that, obviously, she bears the burden of proving it. That's also a separate matter.
    1
  17. @derrickjoe1872  Exactly -- a random high school party, where underage kids drank, and we ALL know assaults of that nature happened ALL the time. No one batted a eye about it, much less thought anyone should lose any future job over it. That's why I won't be a shill against her, either. No thank you.
    1
  18. @derrickjoe1872  She testified that she remembered the incident itself vividly. The details surrounding it, such as the precise date and place, are not going to be retained. It would be odd if she did remember such details. That's why we have very well-justified statutes of limitations.
    1