D
Deleted member 1
Guest
So I get that
@KWingJitsu has spent a week baiting with the (R) thing. I find it distasteful and don't get the politicizing of sexual assault. But help me out please and don't go to the mud here for this. I can't/won't moderate everything. I'll just eventually be forced to close the thread.
@KWingJitsu , I see you rated him wtf. Are you tracking now disasteful and offensive your tone has been over the week to many? I see you care a lot about race and cop issues in some threads but a week of mocking as if anyone here supports rape...and then kind of a weird double standard where a woman says she's been assaulted...so she's a liar. Yet you've spent the week lobbing political attacks about rape for the same? You're all over the place and helping set a tone that eventually leads to the above.Stop the mudslinging bros. Ffs.
He's admitted his goal here is to get people pissed off and that the links he posts are 100% garbage.
I don't think he even believes his own bullshit. He's probably a Republican farmer in Iowa who voted Trump, but he gets his kicks playing the antagonist on this site.
for anyone else that grew up as a teen in the 80's.. it's weird as fuck seeing those days now labeled as full of beer and rape parties.. we all grew up believing that toga parties, beer bongs, weed, rock n roll and sex was an affirmation of adulthood..and this is not a republican or democrat thing.. party, live your life, go to college, go to work, get married.. have kids.. get old.. kav might be a partisan hack but can't blame him for saying leave me the fuck alone.. times were different back then
Apparently This is why Swetnick isn't being interviewed.
Washington (CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attacked the credibility of a woman who has come forward with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as the FBI investigates accusations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee.
In a statement released Sunday, McConnell highlighted a lawsuit brought against Julie Swetnick 18 years ago by a company she briefly worked for at the time called WebTrends Corporation. The lawsuit was dismissed shortly after it was filed in late 2000, the court documents show.
Who is Julie Swetnick, the third woman with allegations about Brett Kavanaugh?
A passage from the complaint obtained by CNN reads, "Shortly after becoming employed with WebTrends, a co-worker reported to WebTrends' human resources department that Swetnick had engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct. Rather than accept responsibility for her actions, Swetnick made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."
The complaint also says Swetnick provided false information on her employment application, including the claim she graduated from Johns Hopkins University, when the company said the university has no record of her attendance. She is also accused of falsely characterizing her past work experience.
Swetnick is represented by attorney Michael Avenatti, who told CNN in a statement that the claim is "completely bogus, which is why it was dismissed almost immediately."
Avenatti said the defamation suit was filed in retaliation for a claim she submitted against the company. "They filed then. And they dismissed it because it has no merit," he said.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez as part of its narrow scope
In her statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Swetnick said Kavanaugh was present at a high school party where she was the victim of a "gang" rape. She did not identify Kavanaugh as one of her attackers. She also said over a series of parties, she saw Kavanaugh "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s." Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.
Swetnick also filed a different sexual harassment complaint against a former employer, New York Life, a decade ago and was represented in the matter by the firm of the current lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, two sources told CNN. Swetnick was not represented by Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, in that case.
Avenatti has said there was "no coordination whatsoever" between Katz and his client on Swetnick's accusation against Kavanaugh.
As of Sunday morning, there was no indication that the FBI was going to talk to Swetnick.
Washington (CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attacked the credibility of a woman who has come forward with allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as the FBI investigates accusations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee.
In a statement released Sunday, McConnell highlighted a lawsuit brought against Julie Swetnick 18 years ago by a company she briefly worked for at the time called WebTrends Corporation. The lawsuit was dismissed shortly after it was filed in late 2000, the court documents show.
Who is Julie Swetnick, the third woman with allegations about Brett Kavanaugh?
A passage from the complaint obtained by CNN reads, "Shortly after becoming employed with WebTrends, a co-worker reported to WebTrends' human resources department that Swetnick had engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct. Rather than accept responsibility for her actions, Swetnick made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."
The complaint also says Swetnick provided false information on her employment application, including the claim she graduated from Johns Hopkins University, when the company said the university has no record of her attendance. She is also accused of falsely characterizing her past work experience.
Swetnick is represented by attorney Michael Avenatti, who told CNN in a statement that the claim is "completely bogus, which is why it was dismissed almost immediately."
Avenatti said the defamation suit was filed in retaliation for a claim she submitted against the company. "They filed then. And they dismissed it because it has no merit," he said.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez as part of its narrow scope
In her statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Swetnick said Kavanaugh was present at a high school party where she was the victim of a "gang" rape. She did not identify Kavanaugh as one of her attackers. She also said over a series of parties, she saw Kavanaugh "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s." Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.
Swetnick also filed a different sexual harassment complaint against a former employer, New York Life, a decade ago and was represented in the matter by the firm of the current lawyer for Christine Blasey Ford, two sources told CNN. Swetnick was not represented by Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, in that case.
Avenatti has said there was "no coordination whatsoever" between Katz and his client on Swetnick's accusation against Kavanaugh.
As of Sunday morning, there was no indication that the FBI was going to talk to Swetnick.
To quote C&C Music Factory:
"Things that make you go hmm"
Since this is about Kav.. what does everyone think about his 6 figure debt getting paid off right before his nomination?
That, along with lying, is a bigger question mark for me.
That, along with lying, is a bigger question mark for me.
Didn't hear about that.
What was the debt for? Could be innocent. Could be crooked as shit.
I've paid off a 6 figure debt before. I sold my house.
Credit card debt and he had borrowed against his retirement plan.
Plus he joined a country club that charges almost a 100k to join.
It's very possible that it was all legit and that he just didn't disclose it because federal money isn't required to be reported and neither is money from family. The problem is that he's the first that hasn't opted to disclose it anyway and didn't directly answer the few questions about it. Obviously that leads to speculation that he's hiding a benefactor.
I have more issue with a judge carrying $100k in credit card debt. That's all kinds of stupid.
Judges are supposed to be smart, and I would prefer them to be fiscally responsible.
LOL at a country club with a $100k join fee. Fucking rich people crack me up.
Everything I've seen has been vague but his debt was between 60k and 200k. Either way, that's a lot on top of your mortgage.
That's not that uncommon. Especially around the Chevy Chase/NoVa world.
Even with the dip in golf that's led to a lot of gorgeous country clubs dropping their initiation fees there are tons that are still crazy high.
Oh. Plus another 9k in yearly dues and that doesn't include his food spend.
I love golf, but fuck that shit.
I've been the guest at a few country club events. It's more about status than golf. People drop all that money just to say they are a member.
All that scratch and still completely insecure with who they are.
Hilariously they also often aren't all that good at golf.
In my experiences, this is very true. Most of them cheat, too. Haha.
I like the guys who "shoot in the 80's" but take multiple mulligans, kick balls from the rough to the fairway, and never under any circumstances actually putt a ball into the cup.
Yeah. We're kind of getting off topic, but during one of these events I shot an 81. The dude i was playing with had his foot wedge going all day, and didn't add a stroke for 2 of his lost balls. He booked an 80 and had the gall to brag about beating me to all his rich buddies. I didn't bother calling him on it. He knew I beat him, and they likely already knew he was a cheater and was closer to a 90 for the round.
Who were you playing? Judge Smails?
Don't count that! I was interfered with!
Ah yes...winter rules. Winter rules.
Oh well. The world needs ditch diggers, too.
Spalding get your foot off the boat!
M
member 3289
Guest
You know what I find distasteful? I find it distasteful that no-one who is "mad" at my posts is insightful enough to see I was actually exposing the obvious hypocrisy on this topic. Especially on this very thread.So I get that
But help me out please and don't go to the mud here for this. I can't/won't moderate everything. I'll just eventually be forced to close the thread.
Stop the mudslinging bros. Ffs.
So here it is in picture form:
This is what this topic has become. Whether you admit it or not, is up to you, but don't get mad at me for exposing it.
Maybe
@Simpleman and others can tell me how I hurt them so I can unhurt their feelings... but the point I made still stands: Believe all victims, or believe no victims - regardless of political affiliation.Get it now?
Good.
You didnt and cant hurt me. I will actually put you on ignore because you bore me. At least some others bring insight and an intellectual counterpoint to the discussion. You’re a sad little troll. Im just pointing out what a you are and why you cant figure out why you were pinked. It is split right down party lines but accoring to you the other side is the only ones wrong.You know what I find distasteful? I find it distasteful that no-one who is "mad" at my posts is insightful enough to see I was actually exposing the obvious hypocrisy on this topic. Especially on this very thread.
So here it is in picture form:
This is what this topic has become. Whether you admit it or not, is up to you, but don't get mad at me for exposing it.
Maybe
Get it now?
Good.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
You know what I find distasteful? I find it distasteful that no-one who is "mad" at my posts is insightful enough to see I was actually exposing the obvious hypocrisy on this topic. Especially on this very thread.
So here it is in picture form:
This is what this topic has become. Whether you admit it or not, is up to you, but don't get mad at me for exposing it.
Maybe
Get it now?
Good.
So you're being a hyper partisan to show how hyper partisan everyone else is being?
The problem with acting like an idiot on the internet...
Try using your words in the future.
Your sarcasm is likely to get unwanted attention. And your future reports are going to continue to get ignored since you're being clear that your posts might be real or might be sarcasm but who the hell knows... and I don't have time for it.
It's not effective communication style at any level.
