|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1541507)
Every day, liberals get to say whatever vile bullshit they want. Can't handle it when its coming back from the right? Would it have been better if I called them deplorable for all wanting to have sex with minors, and then when caught try to link Trump?
You also seem to forget that with any sufficiently large cut-out of the population, there's bound to be idiots among that group. So yes, there are plenty idiot liberals. There are also plenty idiot conservatives. To call a group of 150M+ people 'simple disgusting people' because it contains idiots is silly. It worries me that someone like you thinks there's no common ground at all with about 50% of the country. How on earth can you make a country work if that is your supposition? |
Originally Posted by Skamba
(Post 1541571)
How on earth can you make a country work if that is your supposition?
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1541542)
This is brilliant, and I award you 1 :likecat:
Unrelated: https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...ea&oe=5DB913AA |
|
how to go shopping, 2019 (everything is free) edition:
Facebook Post |
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1541637)
(The Simpsons)
Anyway, this is interesting: President Trump cannot block his critics on Twitter, federal appeals court rules By Ann E. Marimow July 9 at 11:42 AM President Trump cannot block his critics from the Twitter feed he regularly uses to communicate with the public, a federal appeals court said Tuesday, in a case with implications for how elected officials nationwide interact with constituents on social media. The decision from the New York-based appeals court upholds an earlier ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked individual users who were critical of the president or his policies. Public officials who take to social media for official government business, the court said Tuesday, are prohibited from excluding people “from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote for a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.” (continues) https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...24f_story.html So, yeah. Then, a few days later, the gravy thickens: Ocasio-Cortez faces lawsuits for blocking Twitter critics after appeals court ruling on Trump By Deanna Paul July 10 at 9:42 AM Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is facing two federal lawsuits for blocking Twitter users who were critical of her or her policies. Republican congressional candidate Joseph Saladino and former New York assemblyman Dov Hikind sued the freshman congresswoman Tuesday, shortly after a New York appellate court upheld an earlier decision affirming that President Trump violated the First Amendment for doing the same. “I have officially filed my lawsuit against AOC for blocking me on twitter. Trump is not allowed to block people, will the standards apply equally?” Saladino Hikind, who also filed Tuesday, said in a statement to Fox News, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has blocked me on Twitter yesterday apparently because my critique of her tweets and policies have been too stinging.” Citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decision as “a precedent that Ocasio-Cortez must follow,” he said, “Elected officials cannot block individuals from their Twitter accounts.” Ocasio-Cortez declined to comment on pending litigation. (continues) https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-ruling-trump/ So, wait... The same rules apply to Brown Socialist Woman as do to Cheeto Boss? |
Gods will to fuck little kids?
Father Joseph Baker was charged with sexually assaulting a child under the age of thirteen. https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...utm_content=SP |
Originally Posted by triple88a
(Post 1541696)
Gods will to fuck little kids?
Father Joseph Baker was charged with sexually assaulting a child under the age of thirteen. https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...utm_content=SP But hey, God will forgive them, right? |
Originally Posted by triple88a
(Post 1541696)
Gods will to fuck little kids?
The depth of the uterine cavity is small enough in short-bodied (eg: Caribbean / Asian) women of legal reproductive age that it causes discomfort to both parties when the male is of substantially greater than mean length relative to the statistical average of of the female's ethnic counterparts. (This is one reason why chubby white women are particularly desirable. They have a longer landing platform, and yet the majority of their docking experience is with smaller craft. It's a win/win situation all around.) In the situation of child-rape, unless the male participant has a penis of remarkably small stature, I cannot even begin to imagine how engaging in intercourse with a female child could be in any way gratifying. To be clear, I'm putting morality entirely aside here, and focusing purely on the mechanics of the situation. It just doesn't logically make sense. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1541842)
I've never understood this.
The depth of the uterine cavity is small enough in short-bodied (eg: Caribbean / Asian) women of legal reproductive age that it causes discomfort to both parties when the male is of substantially greater than mean length relative to the statistical average of of the female's ethnic counterparts. (This is one reason why chubby white women are particularly desirable. They have a longer landing platform, and yet the majority of their docking experience is with smaller craft. It's a win/win situation all around.) In the situation of child-rape, unless the male participant has a penis of remarkably small stature, I cannot even begin to imagine how engaging in intercourse with a female child could be in any way gratifying. To be clear, I'm putting morality entirely aside here, and focusing purely on the mechanics of the situation. It just doesn't logically make sense. |
My guess would be specifically to cause pain and feel dominant.
|
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1541850)
Considering the perpetrator, why on earth would you assume it was a female child?
|
As claims to martyrdom go, a troll kicked off Twitter for posting naughty memes sounds not quite on par with the burning of Saint Antipas in ancient Rome. But this is President Trump’s America, and different standards of victimhood may apply. On Saturday, right-wing Internet provocateurs from across the country gathered a few blocks from the White House to “Demand Free Speech,” as their literature put it, which amounted to yelling for several hours about how tech companies have banned, suspended and otherwise “deplatformed” them for being conservative. Full article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...01d_story.html That's a hell of a good opening line. Specifically, the "...But this is President Trump’s America" part, as though this sets the stage for a Mad Max-level dystopian mindset, and renders all hyperbole which is to follow as fact. As someone who lives in "President Trump's America", I personally am a tad offended by the author's presupposition that evoking the name of whoever happened to win the most recent popularity contest legitimizes all following attempts at defaming and vilifying both my country and myself. (To be fair, I'm kind of sensitive that way.) It's also a very good setup in general for marginalizing / discrediting people who, all else being equal, kinda wished that the first amendment protections of speech and media were respected by private companies which happen to constitute a de-facto monopoly on public speech here in the wee hours of the 21st century. Also, I really like the term "deplatforming." It's like the right-wing version of "disenfranchising." Very clever. I seriously award 10/10 for that catchphrase. It casually implies that everyone has the right to a platform, and doesn't even leave room for questioning that tenet. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1541842)
I've never understood this.
The depth of the uterine cavity is small enough in short-bodied (eg: Caribbean / Asian) women of legal reproductive age that it causes discomfort to both parties when the male is of substantially greater than mean length relative to the statistical average of of the female's ethnic counterparts. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1541880)
It's also a very good setup in general for marginalizing / discrediting people who, all else being equal, kinda wished that the first amendment protections of speech and media were respected by private companies which happen to constitute a de-facto monopoly on public speech here in the wee hours of the 21st century. "Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind" |
Facebook Post also, when you really want some drugs: Facebook Post |
|
Who cares about the soccer video?
What do you think that scene looks like when men win in any major event? You think they are putting on smoking jackets, playing bridge, discussing asian rim economic policy while drinking East British India company tea? |
Originally Posted by olderguy
(Post 1541893)
After one offspring it is more accommodating...:)
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1541895)
Remember when the left of the country were worried about being able to freely express dissenting opinions?
But I would like to know more. https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...%2F027.jpg&f=1
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1541897)
This produces no results in Babelfish, so I assume I heard incorrectly. What is they actually saying? (Also, was expecting much more gunfire. 2/10, would not watch again.)
Originally Posted by z31maniac
(Post 1541902)
What do you think that scene looks like when men win in any major event? You think they are putting on smoking jackets, playing bridge, discussing asian rim economic policy while drinking East British India company tea?
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands