Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What?!  Are you insane or just lying?  There are no laws against not hiring someone because you think they are a POS whether there is proof or not.

Man, some of you are wound WAY too tight. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Buzzrock said:

 


Grassley read a new letter from Judge that was received last night. He says he’s in bad shape and suffers from depression, so he doesn’t speak in public. The letter stated that he doesn’t recall the events in question.

 

Well I guess we should just take him at his word then

Posted
Just now, Buzzrock said:

 


Grassley read a new letter from Judge that was received last night. He says he’s in bad shape and suffers from depression, so he doesn’t speak in public. The letter stated that he doesn’t recall the events in question.

 

But does he have a fear of flying?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What in the hell are you going on about ?? Companies can hire who they choose.  There is no protection of due process in the hiring arena. 

If you want to get in that boy's hole, you got to pay the troll toll.

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Buzzrock said:

 


Grassley read a new letter from Judge that was received last night. He says he’s in bad shape and suffers from depression, so he doesn’t speak in public. The letter stated that he doesn’t recall the events in question.

 

 

Posted
15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Not sure how many of y'all work for a living, but just like any other job interview, unless they can prove something against you beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't use it against you during the hiring process.

Image result for giggling animated gif

Posted
Interesting that they abstained. I guess they figured if they abstain it looks better for their election image.


Yup. Booker wants to be president. Gotta build that brand.
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Why would it look better for Booker and Harris to abstain?

It has no political value.  People are just spinning it that way.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted
15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Not sure how many of y'all work for a living, but just like any other job interview, unless they can prove something against you beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't use it against you during the hiring process.

I've never had a job interview that I failed as badly as this guy failed yesterday. His ranting, unhinged temperament and screaming at his job interviewers shows the type of character he is. He's not fit for the Supreme Court. He should be embarrassed by his actions yesterday. Or was he drunk?

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Who cares about their high school.  They are almost all ivy league trained lawyers from one of three law schools.  You want to be worried about narrow academic training, there you go. 

That's a problem as well, IMHO.   We are a large country with differences in thoughts and perspectives.  Our courts should reflect that.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Can anyone explain to me if this hearing was to provide clarity or to get to the bottom of these allegations regarding Ford why did no Dem senator ever ask Kavanaugh about the incident itself? 

To me that is the most telling point. If this was about the truth they should have been raking him over the coals about Fords testimony and his categorical denials. They never did, and that signals to me this was never about Ford but about another opportunity to tarnish his image with other allegations instead. 

Per Grassley, that was the prosecutor's job who they hired to question Ford.  I guess she got tuckered out by the end of the hearing.

What would your line of questioning be, and given that Kavanaugh wasan't answering the questions, and plain bullshitting about shit like his sensitive stomach, how would you have handled that -- with your five minutes?

Posted
1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

I've never had a job interview that I failed as badly as this guy failed yesterday. His ranting, unhinged temperament and screaming at his job interviewers shows the type of character he is. He's not fit for the Supreme Court. He should be embarrassed by his actions yesterday. Or was he drunk?

I’m sure you would remain calm if an interviewer asked if you diddled your children, eh? His anger was fully justified and I would’ve reacted the same way. 

Posted

Well, this should be the end of Maria Shriver on Twitter for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

Maria ShriverVerified account @mariashriver
FollowFollow @mariashriver
More

Maria Shriver Retweeted Bill Grueskin

Oh my god. This is every woman’s nightmare. This is a terrifying image.

 

DoIRlNRU4AAxXEz.jpg

 

Ben ShapiroVerified account

@benshapiro

Every woman's nightmare is being trapped in the back of a sinking car, gasping for air, I'd imagine. Did you ever ask your uncle about it?

 

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Gourmand said:

I've never had a job interview that I failed as badly as this guy failed yesterday. His ranting, unhinged temperament and screaming at his job interviewers shows the type of character he is. He's not fit for the Supreme Court. He should be embarrassed by his actions yesterday. Or was he drunk?

Hes a shit judge, but he wasnt hired to be a judge really. His temperament is a feature. He is there to bully Thomas and Gorsuch, and leak deliberations to rile up MAGA, if/when a Trump case finds its way to SCOTUS.

Kind of how Michael Cohen is a garbage attorney, but Trump didnt hire him to be an attorney.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Underdog said:

That was awesome.  His clit was shrinking with every word spoken from the victim. 

Fucking told some of y'all he'd puss out. I don't think there's ever been a bigger coward to serve in the Senate.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why would this be the message?   Kavanagh is getting on the court.  

Well, you might get called on to a hearing and have to cry.  Making yourself cry is hard work unless you are good at thinking about puppies and such.

Posted

GOP leaders to women: we can rape you with impunity, and we can decide whether or not you are forced to carry the baby to term.

GOP rank and file: this is what God wants.

Yep, stick a fork in the Great Experiment, it's done.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It has no political value.  People are just spinning it that way.

It allows the position that I abstained from this vote because I was uncomfortable from the lack information. It will help with the independents and moderates that they did not vote in block with the rest of the Dems.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, F250 said:

Well, the rapture will have occurred by then and everyone will be under the rule of the antichrist.

 

 

Man...I can't handle that fucking Kirk Cameron....not that.

Edited by Brisketexan
Posted
Just now, Laxtonto said:

It allows the position that I abstained from this vote because I was uncomfortable from the lack information. It will help with the independents and moderates that they did not vote in block with the rest of the Dems.

Really? A committee vote? Give me a fucking break.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Brett gonna be a nightmare for the Dems on the court. 

And that is why it is so important for the GOP. That is all they want, a political entity in the Supreme Court. One that will side with them on every issue. They had to do that because they know their brand is ruined in the short term so their ideology will get to stay in some form by having THIS individual in the seat. But they will scream "Bad politics!" all through the process. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Well, this should be the end of Maria Shriver on Twitter for a while.

 

 

 

 

 

Maria ShriverVerified account @mariashriver
FollowFollow @mariashriver
More

Maria Shriver Retweeted Bill Grueskin

Oh my god. This is every woman’s nightmare. This is a terrifying image.

 

DoIRlNRU4AAxXEz.jpg

 

 

Ben ShapiroVerified account

@benshapiro

Every woman's nightmare is being trapped in the back of a sinking car, gasping for air, I'd imagine. Did you ever ask your uncle about it?

 

Whoa, Shapiro with the head shot. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

If the Dems somehow manage to regain control of the Presidency and both chambers sometime soon, they should stack the court and make Christine Blasey Ford one of the justices.

Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

All those generations of Kennedys serving the country to have the family name spoiled in the end like that.

Citizens United will also be his legacy, at least for me.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Brett gonna be a nightmare for the Dems on the court. 

How you figure?  He is still gonna have to show his calculations in his opinions. If he doesnt, he will even make enemies of Roberts and Gorsuch. 

He loves PACs and gerrymandering, but those are set to backfire. 

There is only one single case where he is going to throw out all historic precedent and bully the other conservatives on the court to vote his way. And that case probably wont occur since SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment and removal of a President. The charges were never going to come before removal. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I've never had a job interview that I failed as badly as this guy failed yesterday. His ranting, unhinged temperament and screaming at his job interviewers shows the type of character he is. He's not fit for the Supreme Court. He should be embarrassed by his actions yesterday. Or was he drunk?

The GOP is the party of Trump now. Being a lying, whiny little bitch is the new standard. 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 


Public harassment of those they disagree with does seem like the new D way.

 

It works. If only good Germans had done the same to mid level Nazis, we could have avoided WW2.

Dont be a piece of shit if you dont want to be called out on it. Your real problem is that you think these things are minor disagreements. They arent. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Posted
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

How you figure?  He is still gonna have to show his calculations in his opinions. If he doesnt, he will even make enemies of Roberts and Gorsuch. 

He loves PACs and gerrymandering, but those are set to backfire. 

There is only one single case where he is going to throw out all historic precedent and bully the other conservatives on the court to vote his way. And that case probably wont occur since SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment and removal of a President. The charges were never going to come before removal. 

He's a super partisan on the bench.  lulz at not thinking he can come up for legal justifications for a desired outcome.  I mean, its only the exact thing that is in every appellant and appellee brief before him.



×
×
  • Create New...