Really disappointing that TD always jokes about this. Makes us look really bad. If/when Trump wins in 2020, he'll get at least one more. No need to post jokes about someone dying in the meantime.
Could happen. None of us are perfect. Even a robber nailed to a cross next to Jesus made it in. So it's possible for anyone. None of us are deserving even though it really feels like some really shouldn't be.
That said, I hope we can continue to win and stamp out the evil in our govt.
Nothing wrong with people sharing they feel it's in distaste to mock the dying. I get it. I also support your ability to call them out. To each their own. I like seeing the dichotomy on here.
Lol at this sentiment. I'm offering you strategic advice not to run around cheering when someone dies. It doesn't get people to our side. It makes us look like shit. I'm not personally offended. I will happily acknowledge we need that seat. But making jokes about her death doesn't speed up the process.
Yall ever heard of fucking coach speak? You beat the fuck out of your rivals, first thing you say is "I have great respect for them, that's a hell of a team." Then you go in the locker room and say fuck those douchebags. This ain't the locker room. This is a public forum. The locker room is your head.
So enjoy openly celebrating the death of a political rival while giving the left ammo. Big picture that is a negative to our cause. Unless you want to argue that celebrating death helps get more people to become conservative. Please go for it.
Big picture, dumbasses. This shit doesn't help out cause. You say grow some balls, I say grow a brain. You must be too simple too comprehend how this hurts conservatism and feeds into their propaganda. And before you say it, yes, fuck their propaganda. But it sure helps when they have to make up shit instead of post quotes of us celebrating someone's bad health.
I'll report what I posted before. Fuck off with calling me a cuck because I'm fucking smarter and more strategic than you.
Lol at this sentiment. I'm offering you strategic advice not to run around cheering when someone dies. It doesn't get people to our side. It makes us look like shit. I'm not personally offended. I will happily acknowledge we need that seat. But making jokes about her death doesn't speed up the process.
Yall ever heard of fucking coach speak? You beat the fuck out of your rivals, first thing you say is "I have great respect for them, that's a hell of a team." Then you go in the locker room and say fuck those douchebags. This ain't the locker room. This is a public forum. The locker room is your head.
So enjoy openly celebrating the death of a political rival while giving the left ammo. Big picture that is a negative to our cause. Unless you want to argue that celebrating death helps get more people to become conservative. Please go for it.
Big picture, dumbasses. This shit doesn't help out cause. You say grow some balls, I say grow a brain. You must be too simple too comprehend how this hurts conservatism and feeds into their propaganda. And before you say it, yes, fuck their propaganda. But it sure helps when they have to make up shit instead of post quotes of us celebrating someone's bad health.
Don't feel too sorry for her. She wanted to lower the age of consent to 12, legalize prostitution, including child prostitution, and legalize moving sex trafficking victims across state lines because it was a 'private' matter.
Did you see that freaky "Lady" on UK TV defending pedophiles the other day. She basically said Epstein & the Prince did nothing wrong because the girls were prostitutes. That's RBG's attitude as well.
Lastly, RBG greatly admired the guy who wrote Lolita, about a middle aged man grooming a 12 year old girl for sex. RBG deserves all the criticism she receives & I suspect much more.
Very good. The real nail in the coffin seems to come from Slate itself.
>Did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever condone pedophilia? I argued in a Sept. 16 Chatterbox (“Lindsey Graham’s Smear“) that she did not. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School and Edward Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, take issue with my case. They remain wrong, and I remain right.
>
>
>To review: The source of the trouble is Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, a booklet co-authored by Ginsburg and published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1977. In this booklet, an earlier version of which is available online, Ginsberg praised a proposed Senate bill that would have altered the federal law governing rape. Here’s the part of the booklet that got Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., hot and bothered during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice nominee John Roberts:
>
>
>>18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.
>
>
>Twelve years old? Lock up your daughters!
>
>
>Or rather, lock up your children. As the title of the booklet announced, its purpose was to propose ways that existing federal laws could be rewritten to render them gender-neutral. That is the part of S. 1400 §1633 that interested Ginsburg. Why she included the language that seems to put the age of consent at 12 is a bit of a mystery, because it wasn’t relevant to her point. But common sense dictates that if Ginsburg had really wanted to invite 12 year-olds to go all the way, she would have stated some reason. She didn’t. She didn’t discuss the age of consent at all.
Hmmm, if that really the best rebuttal...thats its a "mystery"...
I mean I know the 70s were a wild and crazy time but 12 is...just ridiculous. Even if yr both 12. Wow, crazy. Thanks for the new info!
Formatting about to drive me to wrap this tablet around a fucking metal bar in a second, time for sleep before I'm out 300 bucks...
Really disappointing that TD always jokes about this. Makes us look really bad. If/when Trump wins in 2020, he'll get at least one more. No need to post jokes about someone dying in the meantime.
RBG was a domestic enemy. I feel nothing for her.
None of us are fit to make that judgement.
Could happen. None of us are perfect. Even a robber nailed to a cross next to Jesus made it in. So it's possible for anyone. None of us are deserving even though it really feels like some really shouldn't be.
That said, I hope we can continue to win and stamp out the evil in our govt.
Normally, I’d agree with you, but these are trying times my friend.
We aren’t like the left. Don’t compare us to them.
Based.
Joking about someone on their deathbed struggling for life is bad form. There's better ways to express your distain
Nothing wrong with people sharing they feel it's in distaste to mock the dying. I get it. I also support your ability to call them out. To each their own. I like seeing the dichotomy on here.
Lol at this sentiment. I'm offering you strategic advice not to run around cheering when someone dies. It doesn't get people to our side. It makes us look like shit. I'm not personally offended. I will happily acknowledge we need that seat. But making jokes about her death doesn't speed up the process.
Yall ever heard of fucking coach speak? You beat the fuck out of your rivals, first thing you say is "I have great respect for them, that's a hell of a team." Then you go in the locker room and say fuck those douchebags. This ain't the locker room. This is a public forum. The locker room is your head.
So enjoy openly celebrating the death of a political rival while giving the left ammo. Big picture that is a negative to our cause. Unless you want to argue that celebrating death helps get more people to become conservative. Please go for it.
Big picture, dumbasses. This shit doesn't help out cause. You say grow some balls, I say grow a brain. You must be too simple too comprehend how this hurts conservatism and feeds into their propaganda. And before you say it, yes, fuck their propaganda. But it sure helps when they have to make up shit instead of post quotes of us celebrating someone's bad health.
This guy is a leftist pretending to be a Trump supporter.
This guy is a leftist pretending to be a Trump supporter.
I'll report what I posted before. Fuck off with calling me a cuck because I'm fucking smarter and more strategic than you.
Lol at this sentiment. I'm offering you strategic advice not to run around cheering when someone dies. It doesn't get people to our side. It makes us look like shit. I'm not personally offended. I will happily acknowledge we need that seat. But making jokes about her death doesn't speed up the process.
Yall ever heard of fucking coach speak? You beat the fuck out of your rivals, first thing you say is "I have great respect for them, that's a hell of a team." Then you go in the locker room and say fuck those douchebags. This ain't the locker room. This is a public forum. The locker room is your head.
So enjoy openly celebrating the death of a political rival while giving the left ammo. Big picture that is a negative to our cause. Unless you want to argue that celebrating death helps get more people to become conservative. Please go for it.
Big picture, dumbasses. This shit doesn't help out cause. You say grow some balls, I say grow a brain. You must be too simple too comprehend how this hurts conservatism and feeds into their propaganda. And before you say it, yes, fuck their propaganda. But it sure helps when they have to make up shit instead of post quotes of us celebrating someone's bad health.
Don't feel too sorry for her. She wanted to lower the age of consent to 12, legalize prostitution, including child prostitution, and legalize moving sex trafficking victims across state lines because it was a 'private' matter.
Did you see that freaky "Lady" on UK TV defending pedophiles the other day. She basically said Epstein & the Prince did nothing wrong because the girls were prostitutes. That's RBG's attitude as well.
Lastly, RBG greatly admired the guy who wrote Lolita, about a middle aged man grooming a 12 year old girl for sex. RBG deserves all the criticism she receives & I suspect much more.
Links? Even a shitty one. This, I must see.
Very good. The real nail in the coffin seems to come from Slate itself.
>Did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever condone pedophilia? I argued in a Sept. 16 Chatterbox (“Lindsey Graham’s Smear“) that she did not. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School and Edward Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, take issue with my case. They remain wrong, and I remain right. > > >To review: The source of the trouble is Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, a booklet co-authored by Ginsburg and published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1977. In this booklet, an earlier version of which is available online, Ginsberg praised a proposed Senate bill that would have altered the federal law governing rape. Here’s the part of the booklet that got Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., hot and bothered during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice nominee John Roberts: > > >>18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. > > >Twelve years old? Lock up your daughters! > > >Or rather, lock up your children. As the title of the booklet announced, its purpose was to propose ways that existing federal laws could be rewritten to render them gender-neutral. That is the part of S. 1400 §1633 that interested Ginsburg. Why she included the language that seems to put the age of consent at 12 is a bit of a mystery, because it wasn’t relevant to her point. But common sense dictates that if Ginsburg had really wanted to invite 12 year-olds to go all the way, she would have stated some reason. She didn’t. She didn’t discuss the age of consent at all.
Hmmm, if that really the best rebuttal...thats its a "mystery"...
I mean I know the 70s were a wild and crazy time but 12 is...just ridiculous. Even if yr both 12. Wow, crazy. Thanks for the new info!
Formatting about to drive me to wrap this tablet around a fucking metal bar in a second, time for sleep before I'm out 300 bucks...
Nabokov is all you need to see there.