{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/6/2018 10:28:24 AM
11
-
More of a job interview. Tell me- If you raved about a Clinton conspiracy out to get you to your interviewers, do you think they would hire you? Or throw questions back at them instead of answering them?
-
How many job interviews have you participated in where almost half of the panel is dead set on ensuring you don't get the job? Where they use unethical maneuvering and manipulation to the point that your life is literally in danger? Where they change the definition of words (corroboration) in order to destroy not only your professional life but also your personal life? My guess is zero but the lefty theme of the month is to pretend what happened is totally normal and in fact a moral imperative so no lie would shock me. Also, stop reading the news and listen to testimony yourself. It is disengenuous to say Kav was pedaling a conspiracy but I only know that because I listened to the testimony myself.
-
Editado por cRaZyT101: 10/6/2018 5:01:00 PMHow many job interviews would allow an interview to take place when you have sexual assault allegations? You want me to listen to the testimony? I did, and I saw a rude, crazy man who hates the fact that something he think is his is being challenged. A man who cannot answer simple yes or no questions from half the panel, while the other half compliments him and apologizes that he's being accused of sexual assault. You listened to the testimony. Do you think [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkYpLuY-pNQ]this is a nonpartisan judge?[/url]
-
Editado por Dark Elation: 10/6/2018 7:54:56 PMMove the goalposts again, huh? Pretending that what happened to Kav is a normal, everyday occurrence. Americans just lying in wait to destroy other Americans lives. Keep up the slimy, gutter politics. I, for one, won't play in the sewer. Have fun throwing mud at your fellow Americans. Edit watched your clip. Did I miss the judge part? Where he was answering a question about doing judge things? Didn't think so.
-
im convinced no amount of effort will convince you my point so i will just do the conversation in its entirety: "no your rong heres y" "lol libturd u h8 fredim" "no i dont whr ur sitation" "lol go git ur own citation officer" "here u go frendo" "lol u r wong godby" "ok den" there i just did our conversation for you, goodbye
-
Lol you think this whole time I don't get your point? Lolololol.
-
but you not get point, for point was fact that kavanaugh has bad temper and is unfit to be justice you just ignore point and say I move goalposts tell me when you ready for serious discussion, because right now you only ignore point and make me sad :(
-
Bro your point was stupid. I already told you I'm not having a "serious discussion" with a sewer rat. I for one am critical enough to see your line of argument for what it is. You seem to think that in that hearing the SJC was trying to determine what kind of judge Kav would be. It wasn't. That's why your point is stupid. Even the most liberal SCJ's denounced Democrat behavior. Yet you're still pretending it was you and others like you that were wronged in this whole thing. Keep losing election after election and maybe the left will finally wake up.
-
hey guys we are at the "lol u r wong godby" part of minus maybe the godby part. I will ask our "conservative" frendo one question, maybe he will answer it. [quote]You seem to think that in that hearing the SJC was trying to determine what kind of judge Kav would be. It wasn't. That's why your point is stupid.[/quote] you dont think the hearing, aka job interview pt. dois, does not show us how Mr kav will be when he acted in a partisan manner. I show u a clip of him ranting about a Clinton conspiracy out to get him yet you think he is mentally fit for a justice seat. When a senator shared her view of alcoholism thru her father to Mr kav, he fired the same question back at her. mr kav refused to answer question clearly and concisely for one half of the panel yet chose to answer clearly for the other. hearing is part of the vetting process to get on scotus, yet you think it do not count. why would you think such a thing?
-
I "think it do not count"? You established a position I never took then ask a question based on that position. I'm not going to defend something I never said. Enjoy the next 40 years of Constitutionalist SCOTUS!
-
Ugh, I get so bored speaking like someone who does not care. Let's just carry on the old song and dance. You responded to my post which was about how Kavanaugh acted during the hearing, did you not? If that is not what you are discussing then why do you insist on wasting my time?
