Gary O.'s Replies


My view is that this was a good film. It is one of the few in which I have liked de Niro's performance. The rest of the cast is good as well, especially Jean Reno. The action was well-done, and the car chase is one of the best I have seen. My opinion of Ronin seems to be a lot higher than yours, but in the final analysis, opinions of films are just that: opinions. Our like or dislike of a particular film should not be used as the basis for judging others. [quote]Tangent on that aspect. I know Clancy wrote how Cathy's parents worshiped at "the alter of the almighty dollar" and were very disappointed when Jack left Merrill Lynch. I wish Clancy (or one of the guys writing for him now) would address how her parents feel now that Jack is President.[/quote] My impression is that both of Cathy's parents were dead by the time Jack became National Security Adviser to Roger Durling. The only time we see Jack interacting with his FIL is in 'Patriot Games'. The novel, not the film. After PG there is no more interaction, which tells me that he died in the interim. Chapter 17 implies that US Highway 36 is in the vicinity of Houston, Texas. US 36 runs east-west in northern Kansas. The US Navy corpsman that took care of Phillips was a woman. [quote]That spells Apocalyptic pandemic. Laws yes! [/quote] If I might ask, how did you like the movie? Have you read the book? [quote]They questioned, but did not investigate. [/quote] And you know this how? I'd agree with you if Murkowski and a few more of the liberal Republicans were to side with their party. However, in this case she didn't and if her and Flake were able to persuade just one more GOP senator to oppose Kavanaugh, he would not have been confirmed. So it is possible to reject a conservative justice to the USSC. As to the other thing, I have no idea what the Devil's triangle is beyond the area in the ocean in which ships and aircraft are said to vanish. BTW, I am no more partisan than you seem to be. Didn't the FBI question Judge in this latest go-'round? He denied Ford's allegations. And they were not backed up by the person that she named. I'm not saying that Dr. Ford is lying. I don't know for a fact that she is. It's possible that she is confused. As to your other charges, they don't pass the smell test. Democrats just don't want another conservative on the Court and they will destroy anyone to keep him off. Fortunately, they failed. Kavanaugh 'lied under oath'?? What lie did he tell under oath? From your last post it's clear you're against Trump and that's why you dislike Kavanaugh so much. The Democrats in the Senate were the same way, so much so that they waited until it looked like Kavanaugh was going to confirmed and then at the last minute they throw this very likely false accusation at Kavanaugh out of desperation. This way they hoped to delay, delay, delay, with endless FBI inquiries. Kavanaugh will be a fine Justice of the USSC. And I'm saying the he acted like a normal man falsely accused in a very public setting of a vile crime with no corroboration. I would have been more concerned if he had not came off as angry. Put yourself in his place: he is accused of a sexual assault in front of the whole world. You seem to take the position that he should just shrug it off. Personally, I think he did fine and would have handled it pretty much like did. [quote]I don’t even have to believe her. I just had to watch his “testimony “ to see he’s not someone who should be a Supreme Court Justice[/quote] Her testimony accused a man of sexual assault. If that had happened to me, I'd react pretty much like Justice Kavanaugh: with anger and passion, especially if I was innocent. You said in an earlier post: [quote]The burden of proof is true....in a trial. Or a court case. [b]This was neither.[/b][/quote] So you think that the burden of proof doesn't apply here, and you also say that you don't have to believe her. Then you focus in his demeanor before the Committee., saying that he did not do things the way they were in a courtroom. But as you point out, this was not a courtroom, but a hearing of the Senate which by its' very nature is a political endeavor. You say the rules don't apply to Dr. Ford because this isn't a trial, yet you complain that the guy who was accused fights back, and you want to apply the rules in this case. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. It sounds to me as though you just don't want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and this creates the suspicion that you are looking for any justification that you can. First, the accusation, and then when the accuser's credibility is brought into serious question, and remember, you are the one who said you 'didn't have to believe' her, you shift to his demeanor. This strikes me as being less than totally forthcoming here. As do I. True, this was not a court case, but common decency demands that someone back up accusations that they make against others, especially in so public a setting. Let me ask you this, if I might: what evidence has she presented to back her statements up? The people she named as being able to corroborate her story have not done so. She has yet to tell us where the attack took place, the exact date on which it took place. She doesn't remember how she got there or how she got home. She said nothing about the alleged attack until many years later. She said that she was afraid of flying, (that was why she did not come to Washington, she said) yet she seems to fly frequently. It doesn't seem to be a problem when she's going on vacation. And the story she told about the doors in her home seem to lack credibility as well. crc32 puts it rather well with this somewhat earthy post: [quote]Oh bullshit. Theres no evidence ford's claims are real. She's a manipulator that lies to complete her objectives. 2 front doors because she's afraid of being trapped in her house. Bullshit she rented out rooms to college students built an extra entrance so the studen't woulden't have to walk through the center of the house. Has a fear of flying yet flies on prop planes. Yea trumps a bully but that doesn't change the fact that Ford's can't keep her paints from catching on fire.[/quote] So, it would appear that Dr. Ford has some real credibility issues. Given this, why should we believe her? So there is no evidence to back her story up. That's about what I thought. As for your challenge to prove it didn't happen goes, I freely admit that I can't. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser (in this case, Dr. Ford) and not on Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh. He doesn't have to prove that he didn't assault her; she has to prove that he did. She has failed in this. As far as Fox News or Trump goes, I rarely watch TV, so you'll have to find something else to blame. How does this show that Dr. Ford's accusations are true? His demeanor by itself does not prove that they are. Your characterization of Kavanaugh, even if I agreed with it--I don't, but that aside--does not prove her allegations. So, I ask you: what evidence backs up Dr. Ford's allegations? [quote]Ack, unfortunely, I wish Christine Blassey Ford was only lying, but [b]I see evidence of it being very real[/b] and Trump is being a bully, and as I said elsewhere on the message bove, go ear the top, this time I'm not so sure they're snowflakes this time, I think this time they're right, and mocking them is out of line.. (Again, I am a Republican.,.hoping that Ford was overacting and noit raped so I can support Trump whom I voted for.)[/quote] Please be kind enough to share this evidence with us, because I sure don't see it. Damn good post, crc32 [url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6249875/Actress-Rose-McGowan-triggered-Harvey-Weinsteins-downfall-says-MeToo-bull.html[/url] Just noticed this. Not saying it's the gospel truth, but it does fit in, I believe.