It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Party of Ban the Box Movement Demands Public Airing of Kavanaugh Smears? WTF?

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


I am confused.. after watching this last conformation circus, I thought that now you don't need to be convicted, there does not need to be a trial and you are guilty until proven innocent if you are a conservative white male.

Did I miss something about the new liberal rules?



A simple facebook post that reflects negatively onto a persons character, is enough to have them denied of a position on the factory floor... Why would gaining a seat in the Supreme court, be held to a lesser standard than some low end factory job?




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Sounds like something Senator Mazie Hirono would endorse wholeheartedly and wholesomely.

💥👢💥
edit on Oct-08-2018 by xuenchen because: ☢☣



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   


Should your criminal history be on job applications?


Going by the 8th amendment No.

Commit a crime. Do the time. Onces served. That's all she wrote.

Trying to hold it over a person for the rest of their natural born lives constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment.

I could throw the 14th on top.

Because it doesn't matter if we like felons or not. They are guaranteed equal protection under the law.
edit on 8-10-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


I am confused.. after watching this last conformation circus, I thought that now you don't need to be convicted, there does not need to be a trial and you are guilty until proven innocent if you are a conservative white male.

Did I miss something about the new liberal rules?



A simple facebook post that reflects negatively onto a persons character, is enough to have them denied of a position on the factory floor... Why would gaining a seat in the Supreme court, be held to a lesser standard than some low end factory job?


Because both are incredibly stupid standards set up by the left in an attempt to make everyone that does not conform with their ideology shut up, get in the back of the bus and die.

Hope I helped you with understanding America NOW.

I also hope we can get that fixed, despite people such as yourself.


edit on 8-10-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MRinder

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been convicted if it had. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that would apply there. Here, she was just more information for a job interview.

My thoughts; for that seat, any doubt is problematic.



Thank you. I would agree doubt is problematic. I personally don't doubt him, because the accusers didn't give any thing to make their accusations believable. I think it gets pretty ugly if meer accusation with no evidence makes us believe someone sexually assaulted someone.
edit on 8-10-2018 by MRinder because: Spelling

edit on 8-10-2018 by MRinder because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That's how it's supposed to work...

How often, I wonder, does it work that way?



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


I am confused.. after watching this last conformation circus, I thought that now you don't need to be convicted, there does not need to be a trial and you are guilty until proven innocent if you are a conservative white male.

Did I miss something about the new liberal rules?



A simple facebook post that reflects negatively onto a persons character, is enough to have them denied of a position on the factory floor... Why would gaining a seat in the Supreme court, be held to a lesser standard than some low end factory job?


Well, if he had been the one to start all of this by either posting on facebook something untoward, or telling someone "Hey you should have seen what I did when I was 17!" then perhaps you'd have a point.

Instead, this is completely brought on him by someone with no evidence, no recollection, no witnesses, of something 36 years ago, just as he's about to be appointed to this position. A baseless allegation, to smear him with doubt. It didn't work.

He did nothing to warrant what occurred, and in all his history working for for the government, it still reeks of an egenda to stop him gaining said position.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




How often, I wonder, does it work that way?


No.

And it's especially clear on gun control and the background check.

Only perfect people get to practice their inalienable right.

&
Only perfect people get to work.



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah.

But it's about people who were convicted (with a trial and stuff) and served their terms. So, not really the same thing. But hey, he's a Justice now. Isn't he? And Trump is the president. Right?


I am confused.. after watching this last conformation circus, I thought that now you don't need to be convicted, there does not need to be a trial and you are guilty until proven innocent if you are a conservative white male.

Did I miss something about the new liberal rules?



A simple facebook post that reflects negatively onto a persons character, is enough to have them denied of a position on the factory floor... Why would gaining a seat in the Supreme court, be held to a lesser standard than some low end factory job?


baby steps. You are starting to get it, and when you do, I hope you explain it to Phage. See, this is what we like to call "wrong". Both of them. Rumors should not dictate a person's future. Otherwise, we could all go around screwing up each others lives just for the LOL's. I'm sure the R's are evil and mean, and eat babies, but currently, the D's hold the ball, and it's dripping with scum from what they just did. So rather than admit it was wrong, you and yours will likely try to find the holy grail of whataboutism to deflect rather than accept any responsibility or offer your condemnation of said events.

Kavanaugh had 3 days of hearings on his conduct and rulings. If he wasn't suited for the job, that would have been the venue to deal with that. And if verifiable facts existed, then even the right would be forced to accept the facts. Doing things this way will lead to really bad things for all. I can't imagine the tears and tantrums if the right was to ever stoop to the level of assholeishness. (now run and find something to whatabout and be a hero)
edit on 9-10-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually it's about a person's past should not impact their job outlook.

This is a job interview, why make the past matter?




top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join