Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Went to a comedy show last night where the comedian suggested that maybe Feinstein could go on a hunger strike for abortion rights. Due to her dementia, she wouldn't even know she's on a hunger strike. Win win!

 

thats-so-funny-i-forgot-to-laugh.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

spacer.png

https://thethermidor.com/the-puckle-gun/

Patented in 1718, 73 years prior to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

Then you have the Kalthoff Repeater:

Designed in 1630, the Kalthoff Repeater was a flintlock rifle that could fire between 30-60 rounds per minute. It went through multiple variations, some able to fire 29 shots without reloading, similar to the standard magazine capacities of the Colt AR-15.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

Or the Cookson Repeater

The Cookson Repeater was a repeating rifle designed in the late 17th century. It used a rotating drum magazine and had a fourteen shot capacity. The gun could fire all fourteen shots without reloading, a feat which was only surpassed by the Kalthoff Repeater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater

And Christine Jorgensen underwent sexual transition in the early 1950s. So what's your point? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

enjoy your holiday for this post. it's the sum of your attacks on her,  not necessarily this individual one, but it's so over the top misogynistic i had no choice. 

jesus man get ahold of yourself. 

I am curious hayden, do you keep a running tally of the personal attacks levied by posters against each other on this sub?  Sack is a fucking asshole no doubt, but I would be curious as to what your ledger shows in terms of the sum of the personal attacks directed at him. People wonder why the exchanges have gotten so personal and adversarial in this sub. Well, as you put it, it is not the individual posts, its the sum of the personal attacks that you let slide for years, only chiming up in ways that come off as capricious. The moderation of this sub wrt personal attacks has been a total shit show for a long time and this is the end result. Congrats. 

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I am curious hayden, do you keep a running tally of the personal attacks levied by posters against each other on this sub?  Sack is a fucking asshole no doubt, but I would be curious as to what your ledger shows in terms of the sum of the personal attacks directed at him. People wonder why the exchanges have gotten so personal and adversarial in this sub. Well, as you put it, it is not the individual posts, its the sum of the personal attacks that you let slide for years, only chiming up in ways that come off as capricious. The moderation of this sub wrt personal attacks has been a total shit show for a long time and this is the end result. Congrats. 

 

Have to agree. I certainly don't miss @Onboard 2.0 at all but his suspension that led to his tantrum was similarly capricious. Now there are certainly some that literally only come in to this forum to troll and avoid discussion (e.g. clapclap. caponeta) but for all his shitiness Sack will actually occasionally respond. I'm also not sure he gets more personal than others do to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 7:10 PM, Ag with kids said:

So you realize that it's very few of us and shit tons of you.

That’s the problem.  Nationwide, there are relatively few of you imposing a horrifying future on shit tons of the rest of us.  But enjoy the evangelical spring.  The season will turn to your autumn soon enough.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 8:24 AM, wildcat09 said:

 

What's kind of comical about this is that Scalia, among others, would have said that legislative intent is irrelevant.  We assume Congress meant what they said.

This is kind of bizarre:  it's an unambiguous statute (ambiguity is typically required before you look behind the words to things like intent), so lets look behind the words and figure that Congress couldn't possibly have meant what it said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's kind of comical about this is that Scalia, among others, would have said that legislative intent is irrelevant.  We assume Congress meant what they said.

This is kind of bizarre:  it's an unambiguous statute (ambiguity is typically required before you look behind the words to things like intent), so lets look behind the words and figure that Congress couldn't possibly have meant what it said.

Well, it’s what obviously flawed in his logic about Abortion (if not Roe): there is zero mention of the unborn in the constitution. None. The first mention is in the citizenship clause in the 14th. Thus the unborn have no rights under a textual reading of the constitution. Or really an originalist, since the unborn are never discussed in the Federalist papers.  But women do have due process rights.  Thus even if you adopt a reading of the constitution that somehow gives legislatures the right to protect the unborn, it must follow the due process rights of women, which would give them the right to learn, understand, and resolve a pregnancy in advance of any state action.  I can see a reading of Dobbs that bans abortion after 15 weeks, but not before, because to do so denies a woman reasonable due process. A total ban has always, to my mind, been unconstitutional since the 14th amendment was passed.  
 

And this says nothing of unenumerated rights.  

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I am curious hayden, do you keep a running tally of the personal attacks levied by posters against each other on this sub?  Sack is a fucking asshole no doubt, but I would be curious as to what your ledger shows in terms of the sum of the personal attacks directed at him. People wonder why the exchanges have gotten so personal and adversarial in this sub. Well, as you put it, it is not the individual posts, its the sum of the personal attacks that you let slide for years, only chiming up in ways that come off as capricious. The moderation of this sub wrt personal attacks has been a total shit show for a long time and this is the end result. Congrats. 

 

I actually feel sorry for the mods. Poor guys just liked Texas football and now they’re stuck reading Captain’s complaints all day. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

I actually feel sorry for the mods. Poor guys just liked Texas football and now they’re stuck reading Captain’s complaints all day. 

Yeah, I agree.  Hayden is a really good guy, at least based on my IRL interactions with him.  Though a number of years ago at this point, I have no reason to think any different. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

There’s a poster that literally toes all the way to the line of doxxing him. So yeah, I’d say he likely doesn’t get as personal.  

Sack does plenty to dox himself. He doesn't need other posters to do it for him. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i've said before...

the 'men' here that go for the low-hanging misogynistic insults of female posters do so for very specific, very obvious reasons. they are just very, very small, in every sense of the word.

also, posrep for this line alone lol

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Sack is a fucking asshole no doubt...

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

There’s a poster that literally toes all the way to the line of doxxing him. So yeah, I’d say he likely doesn’t get as personal.  

Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.

Also, you gave us MC Danger girl, so you get a fuck ton of leeway. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Also, you gave us MC Danger girl, so you get a fuck ton of leeway. 

Funny you mention her. His response to my saying he had a goofy face was to call her ugly. Dude is absolutely a misogynist.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.

There's dozens of people who could pretty easily be doxxed here.  Lobo, who left recently because it was getting too close, is but one example.  It's not hard to figure out who his grandfather was.  He's told us 100 times his role in the church, and never once mentioned it.  Others did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.

Yeah, he called me Katy.  1.  I'm not Katy.  2.  I look nothing like Katy.  Hell, I look younger now than Katy did 10 years ago.  3. Sack hates women.  It is very obvious in the way he attacks us.

Just to be clear, a lot of women have chosen not to get married of have children. It's not because we are bitter, or as Sack believes, lonely and unloved since we can't keep a man.  

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fattyflattie said:

There's dozens of people who could pretty easily be doxxed here.  Lobo, who left recently because it was getting too close, is but one example.  It's not hard to figure out who his grandfather was.  He's told us 100 times his role in the church, and never once mentioned it.  Others did. 

He mentioned it on the other site. As soon as he protested it being named, I immediately deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.

To be fair, I thought I looked pretty good for having COVID and having had 2 bottles of wine that night.  🤣

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I didn’t know it was you. Just remember the rumblings of it. 

That's fine. I won't say anything more at the risk of being accused of doxxing him again. In fact, I've put him on ignore so hopefully will never have to interact with him again.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

To be fair, he isn't here to defend himself.  So, let's get back to talking about The Supremes. 

 

Just want to add a hearty FUCK YOU to Clarence Thomas for his whining in Dallas.  People on the train looked at me when I scoffed VERY LOUDLY.

The richness of him bitching about people protesting at Judges houses when his wife literally took part in a failed coup attempt would give the beetus.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


You know that did irreparable damage to our government institutions?
A violent insurrection that meant that we didn’t have a peaceful transfer of power for the first time since the Civil War. And his demonic cunt of a wife was one of the chief proponents and instigators of it. So he can fuck all the way off, then fuck off again, then triple that fucking off.

And he knew his evil cunt of a wife was part of it and cast a lone dissenting vote to try to protect her. He would’ve been perfectly fine if the coup had been successful.

He’s not fit for his seat on the bench and everything Anita Hill said was true. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Poe It Up said:

I actually feel sorry for the mods. Poor guys just liked Texas football and now they’re stuck reading Captain’s complaints all day. 

Lmao well it's always nice to be thought of, but I don't really report people in CR unless it's outright racism or someone going on a legit bender. I also haven't reported you or sack, but don't let me get in the way of your victim complex

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...