0
dukiehazzard 0 points ago +1 / -1

Imagine being stupid enough to focus your energy on attacking conservatives for being from California while your country is under active attack from a hostile Communist regime.

Oh wait, you are.

-1
dukiehazzard -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yes, the state. Not the citizens. California has more Trump supporters than any other state, and a lot of you are just unpleasant people for no reason.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not even moving to Texas, Susan. Get over yourself. I'll choose to live however I want in my new home. I'm an American. I don't need your advice.

0
dukiehazzard 0 points ago +5 / -5

You're right, I really should have made better voting choices when I was 8 years old.

Again, you have nothing to worry about from me. The last thing I would want in my life is people like you.

Edit: maybe throw in a few more gratuitous "fucking"s next time if you really want to seem tough.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +8 / -6

As someone moving from California this month, that's fine. I will steer well clear of people like you, who will judge me because of where I'm from, despite the fact that I'm probably way more conservative than your friends and family.

7
dukiehazzard 7 points ago +8 / -1

Do any of us believe the merits of the legal arguments will mean anything in this situation, though?

I think it just comes down to a matter of how many justices are compromised, and who do they fear more.

27
dukiehazzard 27 points ago +28 / -1

It's not really a law. He was referring to a case, Johnson v. State, 173 Ga. 734, 742 (2) (161 SE 590), to make a joke. The case actually just defined "mutual combat" for charging purposes:

If upon a sudden quarrel the parties fight upon the spot, or presently agree and fetch or draw their weapons and fight, and one of them is killed, such killing is but voluntary manslaughter, no matter who strikes the first blow. Being suddenly aroused by anger, and mutually intending to fight, the law of mutual combat is involved. Such combat sufficiently appears where it is shown that there was a mutual intent by the accused and deceased to fight, and one or more shots were fired. It makes no difference who fires the first shot, nor is it necessary that both parties shoot.

5
dukiehazzard 5 points ago +5 / -0

Even if gathering reinforcements isn't the primary reason for bringing them home, it certainly wouldn't hurt.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

I originally had hope for this investigation, then I read more about Whitey Bulger, and realized that, despite a dizzying level of corruption, Durham brought down just one, single FBI agent in that matter. He's a cleanup man. The swampiest of swamp.

3
dukiehazzard 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wow, great. Good job, Durham. You sure cracked that one the IG told us about a year ago.

3
dukiehazzard 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't believe your lyin eyes. They have been debunked.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly how I feel. If we don't make a stand here, the Senate doesn't matter.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah the picture is admittedly weird, but I'm still skeptical of this one. I just couldn't imagine Trump allowing this charade to continue unchecked if he were really that much in control.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think they grasp just how many of us are completely ready for this option.

1
dukiehazzard 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm so glad you choose to see Tom Hanks in the proper "context".

1
dukiehazzard 1 point ago +1 / -0

That poor kid. Imagine what Tom did to him off camera.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

because everyone, on both sides, already knows exactly what happened.

2
dukiehazzard 2 points ago +2 / -0

The bribes they took to institute Dominion voting system...

6
dukiehazzard 6 points ago +6 / -0

Most of these state legislators were almost assuredly involved. Imagine her panic.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›