Author Topic: SCOTUS  (Read 115552 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 193
  • -Received: 222
  • Posts: 1908
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2018, 06:19:17 AM »
What type of high school student maintains a calendar detailing the underage drinking parties they attended

It’s almost like kavanuagh knew some things from his ugly past were bound to come up and was prepared w 65 women witnessses to character at the ready

So unlike Romney , this dude actually does have a “binder full of women”  :)

way to attack a kid for keeping a calendar in his youth.  and congratulations to the dems, whose latest smear campaign is against a literal nerd virgin who loves baseball, but probably never made it past second base until he was almost 30.  complete backfire!

Just so we are clear - we are both referring to an over privileged white Middle Aged rich man here  right ?   I am sure these are the sorts of people Jesus would reserve his pity for

But looks like this scotus thread has touched a nerve with kings as he has gone all 100 percent serious and preachy here instead of atleast making a little bit of attempt at a funny / humor type comeback :)

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 505
  • -Received: 789
  • Posts: 15234
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2018, 07:46:31 AM »
King: It all comes down to this. Would you rush to hire someone or would you want to make sure you are hiring the right person?




Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 669
  • -Received: 602
  • Posts: 6341
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2018, 08:01:19 AM »
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 193
  • -Received: 222
  • Posts: 1908
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2018, 08:12:44 AM »
 >:D
King: It all comes down to this. Would you rush to hire someone or would you want to make sure you are hiring the right person?

Especially when it’s an appointment for LIFE !!!!


Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 193
  • -Received: 222
  • Posts: 1908
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2018, 08:19:48 AM »
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 

Yes , tell that to all the minority inmates in prison who have been locked up for relatively insignificant Crimes in their youth and have been suffering ever since . Your beloved sex offender judge himself is on record while sentencing a 17 y old girl that “ teenagers are old enough to realize the consequences of their actions.

This standard of “boys will be boys “ only applies to privileged and prep school teenagers .

I have seen quite a few in my job and their arrogance lives true to the stereotype

But ultimately this is a single person and deserves to stand and fall on his own actions . Wouldn’t an fbi investigation clear all that in a few days ?

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 154
  • -Received: 86
  • Posts: 893
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2018, 08:23:26 AM »
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 505
  • -Received: 789
  • Posts: 15234
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2018, 08:24:28 AM »
I wouldn't look into a more than qualified candidates unsubstantiated teenage fumblings from 30 years ago.  What they accomplished with their lives overall is what matters. 

Google Mark Judge

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 669
  • -Received: 602
  • Posts: 6341
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2018, 08:28:32 AM »
And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 505
  • -Received: 789
  • Posts: 15234
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2018, 08:30:21 AM »
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

Offline fortune11

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 193
  • -Received: 222
  • Posts: 1908
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2018, 08:31:02 AM »
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.

Here comes the preacher ... tsk tsk tsk

So are you happy (“hilarious “) ? Or sad ?  Or trying to make a wisecrack ?   Come on,  decide

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 669
  • -Received: 602
  • Posts: 6341
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2018, 08:32:09 AM »
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

I could care less about Judge.  He is not the one they are aiming at.

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 154
  • -Received: 86
  • Posts: 893
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2018, 08:32:35 AM »
The partisan outrage is hilarious.  What a joke people have become.

Here comes the preacher ... tsk tsk tsk

So are you happy (“hilarious “) ? Or sad ?  Or trying to make a wisecrack ?   Come on,  decide
Entertained
Right now i am watching a loser try to troll others and fail.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 505
  • -Received: 789
  • Posts: 15234
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2018, 08:34:20 AM »
No comment on Mark Judge?  ;)

And who would the interviewer interview?  All four of those she named as present have already stated they don't remember the incident.  Any others are second hand or rumors.  Ramirez is even worse.  Not one independent recollection from anyone including her. She has already admitted to being hammered and foggy and seemed to only remember "facts" her lawyer pointed out to her.  Yah, this is stall tactic and an obvious smear that would do nothing but waste time.  I venture she will back out of the Thursday testimony because she will feel "threatened".  This is all just one big joke.

I could care less about Judge.  He is not the one they are aiming at.

You choose not to know the facts and about him and his friend. (Pick and choose the articles you read?)

I’m not going to read that article because it’s unfavorable.

Check out the yahoo article.

Offline morekaos

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 669
  • -Received: 602
  • Posts: 6341
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2018, 08:41:23 AM »
Which "facts" are you referring to? I found none in that article.  Again, just conjecture and second hand rumors. Anything coming out of the mouth of creepy porn lawyer should be flushed down the toilet.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 505
  • -Received: 789
  • Posts: 15234
Re: SCOTUS
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2018, 08:45:17 AM »
Which "facts" are you referring to? I found none in that article.  Again, just conjecture and second hand rumors. Anything coming out of the mouth of creepy porn lawyer should be flushed down the toilet.

There’s many other articles about him. How come congress won’t suppena him to testify? (Really weak) Maybe because it doesn’t help Kavanaugh.

The fact that you previously mentioned that you can care less about Mark Judge shows that you don’t want to know.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 08:54:00 AM by eyephone »

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Recent Posts

Re: Shady Siam Station in Irvine by washingtoncaly
[Today at 08:22:15 PM]


Re: Oil by morekaos
[Today at 08:00:20 PM]


Re: Retail Openings and Closures by zovall
[Today at 07:35:15 PM]


Re: Oil by nosuchreality
[Today at 06:36:34 PM]


Re: EV/Plug-in/Other vehicles by USCTrojanCPA
[Today at 06:08:13 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2022, SimplePortal