Republicans War on Women

Actually, I agree with most (but not all) of what you're saying.  I don't believe that computer programming was ever a "menial field," regardless of the writer's characterization. And I have no idea what  "complex formula" was used by the the professor, but I don't have a reason to question the methodology, either.

However, I totally agree that anyone who works longer hours and puts in extra effort deserves compensation commensurate with the effort expended. That's just basic fairness.

Scorpion wrote:

Actually, I agree with most (but not all) of what you're saying.  I don't believe that computer programming was ever a "menial field," regardless of the writer's characterization. And I have no idea what  "complex formula" was used by the the professor, but I don't have a reason to question the methodology, either.

I think the author may have been mixing up programming with data processing or simple data entry when programming was done on cards and each instruction had to be individually typed on a data card.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Actually, I agree with most (but not all) of what you're saying.  I don't believe that computer programming was ever a "menial field," regardless of the writer's characterization. And I have no idea what  "complex formula" was used by the the professor, but I don't have a reason to question the methodology, either.

I think the author may have been mixing up programming with data processing or simple data entry when programming was done on cards and each instruction had to be individually typed on a data card.

Yeah, well maybe the writer was talking about data entry, but that sure as hell isn't programming.  When programming was done on cards, the code had to be written by an analyst who knew the language that the code was written in... generally the analyst/programmer wrote out the code, and a clerk typed it on to cards.  The clerk was nothing more than a glorified typist.

IMHO, there are serious inconsistencies in this article. I've not seen the research, but it's clear that the writer of the piece (or the professor) has some gaps in knowledge about how the world actually works...

Scorpion wrote:

IMHO, there are serious inconsistencies in this article. I've not seen the research, but it's clear that the writer of the piece (or the professor) has some gaps in knowledge about how the world actually works...

As it turns out the Professor,Dr. Asaf Levanon, specializes in
Social stratification, sociology of work, demography, and social psychology. He didn't even graduate college until the year 2000 so he could easily be totally clueless as to what jobs were what in the early 70's and how the industry and positions evolved.

Fox News Sources: Gretchen Carlson Wasn’t The First Roger Ailes Victim

Quote :

“He told me that if he was thinking of hiring a woman, he’d ask himself if he would fuck her, and if he would, then he’d hire her to be on-camera.”

WASHINGTON ― Some Fox News on-air personalities are unsurprised by the news that former host Gretchen Carlson has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes.

“We thought it would happen after she was taken off of ‘Fox & Friends,’” said one Fox News source who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “She kept quiet because Roger gave her the afternoon show, but everyone at Fox knew it was eventually coming. He hated her and would tell people that she was ‘a crazy, vindictive bitch.’”

Other sources inside Fox confirmed that Carlson had first threatened to file the lawsuit after Ailes removed her as a host of “Fox & Friends.” But sources say Carlson held off on filing a suit when Ailes agreed to give her the afternoon show.

Carlson was a host of the popular “Fox & Friends” morning program from 2006 until 2013, but was allegedly removed from the show after complaining about her male co-host Steve Doocy. (Disclosure: I was a Fox News contributor from 2014 to 2015.)
Court document
An excerpt from Carlson’s lawsuit describes the hostile work environment allegedly created by Fox host Steve Doocy.

In the suit, Carlson alleges that she was mocked by Ailes for complaining about unequal treatment by male colleagues, and that she was demoted to the afternoon show with reduced pay as retaliation. Carlson also claims that Ailes demanded sex as a way to improve her standing at Fox News and told her to “turn around so he could view her posterior.”

Carlson’s not the only woman to accuse Ailes of such behavior. One female Fox News contributor, who asked to remain anonymous, said that she had a similar encounter with Ailes.

“He asked me to turn around so he can see my ass,” the contributor said, describing one of her meetings with the chairman.

Another Fox News employee, who likewise asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said that Ailes told her she could only wear dresses on air. She also described a story that she said Ailes often told about his hiring process for on-camera personalities.

“He always brags to people about how he doesn’t do polling or testing when he chooses his on-air talent. He told me that if he was thinking of hiring a woman, he’d ask himself if he would fuck her, and if he would, then he’d hire her to be on-camera,” the employee said. “He then said if it was a man he’d think about whether he could sit down for a baseball game with him and not get annoyed of him. If he could, then he’d hire him.”

Carlson’s lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleges that she was eventually fired for refusing Ailes’ sexual advancements.

Fox News did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Fox News CEO in deep trouble? Lawyer claims he demanded oral sex from girl as young as 16-years-old

Quote :

In a gag-inducing follow-up to the news that now former Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson has filed a bombshell lawsuit against Roger Ailes for sexual harassment and retaliation, her lawyer says they can barely keep up with the barrage of calls and emails from other women. From NYMag:

Quote :

Based on what Carlson’s camp is saying, it appears her lawsuit could unleash a torrent of new allegations from other women. “He’s the Bill Cosby of media,” Carlson’s lawyer, Nancy Erika Smith, told me today. “My office is being deluged with calls and website contacts from women. I don’t even have a count anymore … Women as young as 16 who said he demanded oral sex. Another said during an interview that he said, ‘Take off your bra.’ She was devastated.” Smith told me she’s forwarding the names of women who agreed to be interviewed to journalists. The New York Times currently has multiple reporters working on the story.

So far, no women have gone on the record. But Carlson isn’t the first to publicly challenge the Fox chief. In my 2014 biography of Ailes, I reported three incidents where Ailes made inappropriate sexual comments at women in professional settings. One of the women, Randi Harrison, said that when she interviewed for a producing job at NBC in the early '80s, Ailes said he’d increase her salary by $100 a week in exchange for sex. After the incident, Ailes’s friend John Huddy tracked Harrison down and asked her at a bar if she was wearing a wire.

According to CNN, Carlson and her attorney want to get Ailes under oath and plan to call at least one other Fox News employee to testify:

Paging Gloria Allred....

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, we beseech Thee; give us the strength to perform Thy will, and save us from this rampant stupidity.

Amen



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/03/08/some-women-are-striking-from-smiling-today-heres-why/?utm_term=.5194d098c9e5

Some women are striking from smiling today. Here’s why.

By Michael Alison Chandler March 8

The “Day Without a Woman” strike on Wednesday may mean a day with fewer smiles.
While not every one plans to skip work, many who want to show solidarity with the growing feminist movement said they plan to strike from unpaid work that women disproportionately do, including cooking, cleaning and, some said, smiling.
More specifically, fake smiling.
Some feminists say the happy face they sport by habit — or on command — is a form of unpaid “emotional labor.” They do it to be pleasant, to be likable, or because someone told them to do it: “Why don’t you smile!”
They do it because if they don’t, there’s a name for it (Resting Bitch Face).
]“From the time you are small, as a woman  you are encouraged to put on a friendly face,” said Ariana Ascherl, an activist in Anne Arundel, Md., who is organizing a rally in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday with the Democratic Socialists of America.
On her day of action, she also plans to abstain from doing laundry and volunteering at her daughter’s school. She is also trying to be more conscious about how and when she smiles. “I’ve been accused of having a resting nice face,” she said. “Social conditioning is a hard thing to break.”
The “Day Without a Woman” strike was organized by leaders of the the massive post-inauguration women’s marches to raise awareness about the ways in which women drive the economy. The organizers collaborated with feminist groups behind the International Women’s Strike, which was planned with a similar goal, to hold both actions on International Women’s Day Wednesday.  The smile strike was listed as an action by a group backing the international strike, but many women have picked up on the idea.
“Stop telling women to smile” has become a rallying point for feminists who say that men who cajole or prompt women to smile in public are asserting control.
………

happy jack wrote:

Weinstein, Spacey, Halperin, Louis C.K., Franken, Rose, Conyers, Lauer, Keillor, etc., and, of course, the Granddaddy of them all - Bill 'B.J.' Clinton.
And all this time I've been told that it's an exclusively Republican war on women.
Who'da thunk?

I misspoke when I referred to Bill Clinton as the 'Granddaddy of them all'.
Don't know how I managed to leave out the true patriarch of this clan, none other than the 'Lion of the Senate', Ted 'Michael Phelps' Kennedy, who committed the ultimate act of harassment.
My mistake, guys (and Artie).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-war-on-women-is-already-here_us_5b351c5de4b0b5e692f5dce5WOMEN 06/30/2018 05:45 am ET


The War On Women Is Already Here
The Supreme Court crushed working women over this past term. Next year, expect worse.

By Emily Peck

Justice Anthony Kennedy was considered a swing vote during his time on the Supreme Court, but this year alone he joined conservatives in three decisions that are hugely damaging to women.
The Supreme Court has been terrible to women all year ― and that’s with Anthony Kennedy, the conservative swing vote, on the bench. Now that he’s retiring, the court’s steady-drip assault on women’s economic and reproductive rights is poised to turn into an all-out war.
The stakes are now life and death. Any judge President Donald Trump appoints will surely be anti-abortion, as Trump has promised.

If you are talking about abortion, the stakes have always been about life and death.

http://takimag.com/article/the-tart-is-deceitful-above-all-things/#axzz5PPuXCecb

All About Me
The Tart Is Deceitful Above All Things
by Jim Goad
August 27, 2018


Just as there’s a tremendous difference between acting ethically and feeling the need to announce to the world that you’re an ethical person, there is also a massive distinction between being raped and feeling the need to tell the world that you were raped.
I stopped watching Hollywood movies sometime in the mid-1970s, so when the name “Asia Argento” started popping up amid the #MeToo vagina dentata feeding frenzy last fall, I needed to be informed who she was.

Born in the West, Asia—whose name is a common Italian name for girls, and is annoyingly pronounced “AH-see-ah”—is the child of wealth and privilege. Her father Dario is a famous Italian horror-movie director with an estimated net worth of $16 million, yet like many such types, poor Asia can’t seem to just appreciate being lucky and appears to feel the need to rail against “entitles [sic] westerners” as if she weren’t the very embodiment of an entitled, privileged Westerner.
Last fall, along with the obviously deranged actress Rose McGowan, Asia became one of the loudest barking poodles in the #MeToo movement, which declared that victims should always be believed and that perpetrators should always be destroyed.
As this movement grew like a tumor, countless women came forward to accuse men of raping them. They did this publicly, mind you. And they all appeared to relish the attention. Why, it was almost as if there was nothing vicious, mean, predatory, or damaging about trying to publicly destroy anyone. In an agonizingly high number of cases, hiding behind the Morality Shield seems to be a sly and dishonest way of pretending that one’s abusiveness is mere “justice” rather than malice in action.
Publicly declaring that someone found you so sexually irresistible that they couldn’t control their impulses might be a sly way of announcing to the world that you are sexually irresistible. At what point does #MeToo become #LookAtMe?
As far as I can tell from piecing together the available narratives, both Argento and McGowan claimed that Weinstein “raped” them because they faked orgasms when he was performing oral sex on them. I am aware of no accusations that he physically restrained them or threatened them in any way. But it appears that part of what has driven #MeToo is to massively expand the definition of rape to include any sexual encounter a woman might later regret. For example, in the still pending rape charge against Julian Assange, it appears that his only crime was failing to call his alleged victim the next day.
“At what point does #MeToo become #LookAtMe?”
In Argento’s case, she was apparently so appalled by Weinstein’s shoddy cunnilingual skills that she proceeded to have a sexual relationship with him that lasted four years. Maybe he gives good foot rubs—I don’t know. Or maybe she’ll try to claim that the fact she had to fake an orgasm with him left her so mentally ravaged that she couldn’t help but have sex with him for four more years.
As Americans finally started hearing the name “Asia Argento” en masse last fall, she was having a very public romantic relationship with ex-junkie and white-genocide advocate Anthony Bourdain. In the shamelessly sappy photos that Bourdain posted all over social media of himself with Argento, she maintained the same malevolent gleam in her eye while he appeared to be as pussy-whipped as a mouse impaled on a cat’s claw.
When Bourdain killed himself this June, it was immediately blamed on a fictitious medical condition called “depression,” which pill-peddlers will have you believe is a real disease that is likely entirely unrelated to depressing circumstances in one’s life.
It wasn’t until last week that I learned of the circumstances immediately preceding Bourdain’s suicide.
Three days before the 61-year-old Bourdain hanged himself in a Paris motel room, an Italian magazine published pictures of Argento and 28-year-old French writer Hugo Clement. She is shown hugging him, walking hand-in-hand with him, and giving him severe goo-goo eyes.
Mere days after Bourdain’s suicide, an Instagram account called @justicefortony appeared. What’s significant is that the account was followed by Ottavia Bourdain, who is his estranged wife, the mother of his 11-year-old daughter, and a woman who, despite his betrayals, has respectfully chosen to stay out of the spotlight and has refused to make it all about her—in stark contrast to Argento’s subsequent behavior.
According to the account:
She was a monster to him. She took an already very damaged and very sensitive man and destroyed him. His friends and coworkers tried their best to make him see what was going on, but he would just push everyone away. No one could say anything negative about Asia or Tony would try to remove them from his life….
In the end those pictures [of Argento with Clement] were too much. He must have finally realized what she was doing and his world came crushing down.
The account also says that Bourdain and Argento began fighting right after the pictures had been public. He stopped following her social media accounts.
Then on June 8, after by all accounts the couple had ceased to communicate, Argento posted a picture of herself with a T-shirt that read FUCK EVERYONE. She captioned it, “You know who you are.”
Three hours later, Bourdain killed himself.
It’s quite an accomplishment for someone to make me feel sympathy for Anthony Bourdain. It’s also a testament to Argento’s character that she subsequently posted a photo of herself with a “Suicidal Tendencies” shirt and the hashtag #stayingalive.
Even more distasteful was the fact that Argento made quite the public display of being victimized by—rather than, y’know, being a primary cause of—Bourdain’s suicide. Claiming she was too grief-stricken to even speak, she enlisted Rose McGowan’s dubious literary skills to pen an open letter for Rolling Stone on her behalf:
Sitting across from me is the remarkable human and brave survivor, Asia Argento, who has been through more than most could stand, and yet stand she does. She stood up to her monster rapist and now she has to stand up to yet another monster, suicide.
Stooping even lower, McGowan claimed that both Argento and Bourdain had both struggled with depression, but she didn’t kill herself because she was strong—and he did because he was weak. She also made a point of claiming that the pair had an “open relationship,” which was hard for Bourdain to dispute, seeing as he was dead.
Last Sunday, The New York Times published a story alleging that shortly after publicly accusing Weinstein of raping her after he’d sloppily attempted to orally pleasure her, Argento arranged a $380,000 payoff to a male actor who claims she forced herself upon him sexually in a motel room back in May 2013 when he was only two months after his 17th birthday. At the time, Argento was 37.
We’re always supposed to believe the accuser, right?
The actor, Billy Bennett, had starred as Argento’s son in the 2004 film The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things, which Argento directed. Bennett was seven at the time, and among other things, the film required him to be raped.
The pair continued a public friendship over the next ten years, frequently shouting out to one another on social media and referring to one another as “mother” and “son.”
Then, when Bennett had just turned 17, he says he and a family member visited Argento in her Marina del Rey hotel room and at some point Argento requested that the family member leave the two of them alone. He says she first performed oral sex on him and then climbed on top of him for a round of intercourse.
He claimed that the experience traumatized him and impaired his ability to work. The fact that few people will believe that a 17-year-old boy can have sex forced upon him seems barely relevant here—what’s pertinent is that he was accusing someone who says all sexual assault accusers should be believed.
She called the report “absolutely false,” claimed she “never had any sexual relationship with Bennett,” and once again managed to blame it on Bourdain, who by her account caved to the obvious extortion attempt and arranged for the payout through his lawyer.
Unfortunately for this narrative, pictures emerged of Argento and Bennett in bed together, as did alleged text messages from Argento where she flatly stated:
I had sex with him it was weird. I didn’t know he was a minor until the shakedown letter.
This, from the woman who’d known Bennett since he was seven and repeatedly referred to him as her “son.”
Then, like all suspected rapists are supposed to do, Argento blamed the victim:
The horny kid jumped me…he jumped me.
In this case I’m going to believe the accuser. Despite the way modern feminism attempts to frame the discussion as a religious narrative where women are always good and men are always bad, hard experience has taught me that the tart can be deceitful above all things.

Of all the possible candidates Predator Trump manages to nominate Judge Rapey Kavanaugh...

Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public With Assault Allegations In WaPo Interview]

Quote :

The writer of a confidential letter alleging Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party identified herself in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, says Kavanaugh and a friend accosted her at a house party in Montgomery County, Maryland, one summer in the early 1980s.

While the friend watched, a “stumbling drunk” Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes and bathing suit, Ford told WaPo.

Ford further claimed she was able to escape when the friend in the room, Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School classmate Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling off the bed. Ford escaped and locked herself in a bathroom for a brief period before fleeing the house, she said.

Ford’s public revelations come two days after The New Yorker reported the contents of the letter but did not name her as the accuser. Ford had previously sent the letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, through her congresswoman’s office in July.
Earlie
r that month, Ford contacted WaPo through a tip line when she saw that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to the WaPo report. By August, Ford had decided not to go public with her allegations because of the intense public scrutiny it would invite, she said.

Ford said she changed her mind after the story leaked and reporters began closing in on her as the author of the letter. Ford also felt the need to correct misinformation about the allegations, she told WaPo.

“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”

Ford claims she told no one of the alleged assault “in any detail” until 2012, when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. The therapist’s notes, which Ford reportedly provided to WaPo, do not identify Kavanaugh by name.

However, the notes report that Ford said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist. There were four boys at the party but only two — Kavanaugh and Judge — in the room, she said.

Artie60438 wrote:

Of all the possible candidates Predator Trump manages to nominate Judge Rapey Kavanaugh...

Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public With Assault Allegations In WaPo Interview]

Quote :

The writer of a confidential letter alleging Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party identified herself in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University in California, says Kavanaugh and a friend accosted her at a house party in Montgomery County, Maryland, one summer in the early 1980s.

While the friend watched, a “stumbling drunk” Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes and bathing suit, Ford told WaPo.

Ford further claimed she was able to escape when the friend in the room, Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School classmate Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling off the bed. Ford escaped and locked herself in a bathroom for a brief period before fleeing the house, she said.

Ford’s public revelations come two days after The New Yorker reported the contents of the letter but did not name her as the accuser. Ford had previously sent the letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, through her congresswoman’s office in July.
Earlie
r that month, Ford contacted WaPo through a tip line when she saw that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, according to the WaPo report. By August, Ford had decided not to go public with her allegations because of the intense public scrutiny it would invite, she said.

Ford said she changed her mind after the story leaked and reporters began closing in on her as the author of the letter. Ford also felt the need to correct misinformation about the allegations, she told WaPo.

“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”

Ford claims she told no one of the alleged assault “in any detail” until 2012, when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. The therapist’s notes, which Ford reportedly provided to WaPo, do not identify Kavanaugh by name.

However, the notes report that Ford said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist. There were four boys at the party but only two — Kavanaugh and Judge — in the room, she said.

So what do you think? Will Kavanaugh still be confirmed?

[quote="Scorpion"]

Artie60438 wrote:

So what do you think?  Will Kavanaugh still be confirmed?  

I'm not getting my hopes up when it would depend on Republicans taking the word of a woman over a man. This is the same party that stood behind a pedophile who was accused by many,running for Senator in Alabama.

The usual suspects,Flake,Collins,Corker, will make some noise and then fall in line like they always do. It might slow the confirmation up but more women would need to come forward to convince these Republican neanderthals.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

So what do you think?  Will Kavanaugh still be confirmed?  

I'm not getting my hopes up when it would depend on Republicans taking the word of a woman over a man. This is the same party that stood behind a pedophile who was accused by many,running for Senator in Alabama.

The usual suspects,Flake,Collins,Corker, will make some noise and then fall in line like they always do. It might slow the confirmation up but more women would need to come forward to convince these Republican neanderthals.

I gotta believe that the GOP at least needs to allow the accuser to testify. Then Kavanaugh can make his own statement of denial under oath. I really don't understand why Kavanaugh has issued such a blanket denial. He's painted himself into a corner, IMHO.

The GOP can't just ram this through, as planned, on Thursday.

happy jack wrote:

It's certainly a serious enough charge to warrant an investigation, but without her testimony, what will there be to investigate?

It's not a trial, Jack.  There was an accusation. This guy is trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  The accusation really needs to be investigated.  IMHO, the Department of Justice should look into this.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is too damn partisan.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I really don't understand why Kavanaugh has issued such a blanket denial.  He's painted himself into a corner, IMHO.
 

Although neither of us knows who is telling the truth in this matter, if Kavanagh is indeed innocent, then why would he not issue a blanket denial? I don't see how that is in any way painting himself into a corner, assuming that the denial is truthful.

It's been a quickly developing  story.  I assumed that Kavanaugh was present at the gathering
in question.  He was probably drinking, unless the whole story is a total fabrication. I suppose that it could be case of mistaken identity, but if Kavanaugh and Ford knew each other, that's doubtful. But you're right.  I don't know what the hell went down at this point.

I guess we'll see what happens.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

.........
On Tuesday, Ford's attorneys argued in a letter to Grassley that the FBI should investigate the incident before senators hold a hearing on the allegations, which is scheduled for Monday.
Ford's attorney Lisa Banks said Tuesday on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" following the release of Ford's letter that Ford will talk with the committee but that she's not prepared for a hearing that soon.
"She will talk with the committee," Banks said. "She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday. This just came out 48 hours ago."
.........

Just came out 48 hours ago?
Feinstein has been sitting on these allegations since July.
The accuser has been sitting on these allegations for 30-odd years.
And she's still not prepared to talk about it?
Perhaps she should be given another couple of decades to collect her thoughts.

     

And, on a side note, there is no reason that the FBI should be the agency investigating this incident. Even if any crime was committed, it would not warrant a federal investigation. The investigation would fall under the purview of state and/or municipal authorities (unless, of course, the bed mentioned in the allegation happened to be straddling the border between two states and the parties involved rolled from one side to the other).

happy jack wrote:

Just came out 48 hours ago?
Feinstein has been sitting on these allegations since July.
The accuser has been sitting on these allegations for 30-odd years.
And she's still not prepared to talk about it?
Perhaps she should be given another couple of decades to collect her thoughts.

She said she'd testify following an investigation, which seems reasonable, especially if she's lying.  It'd be a far more thorough, honest, and non-partisan investigation that the GOP's current charade.  

happy jack wrote:

And, on a side note, there is no reason that the FBI should be the agency investigating this incident.

Demonstrably false.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Just came out 48 hours ago?
Feinstein has been sitting on these allegations since July.
The accuser has been sitting on these allegations for 30-odd years.
And she's still not prepared to talk about it?
Perhaps she should be given another couple of decades to collect her thoughts.

She said she'd testify following an investigation, which seems reasonable, especially if she's lying.  It'd be a far more thorough, honest, and non-partisan investigation that the GOP's current charade.

Exactly,and who in their right mind would ask for an FBI investigation if they were lying? That would get her an automatic 5 year jail sentence for lying to the FBI. If Rapey Kavanaugh is so concerned with his reputation you have to wonder why he wouldn't be asking for one too.

happy jack wrote:

And, on a side note, there is no reason that the FBI should be the agency

Heretic wrote:

investigating this incident.

Demonstrably false.

Grassley and Hatch are  always barking about "precedent". All Dr Ford is asking for is the same accommodation extended to Anita Hill.

Artie60438 wrote:

That would get her an automatic 5 year jail sentence for lying to the FBI.

Or as today's GOP calls it, "not a big event."

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

And, on a side note, there is no reason that the FBI should be the agency investigating this incident.

Demonstrably false.

Politifact also rates your claim False.