Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3484
  • Joined

Everything posted by hpslugga

  1. And that’s always been their game. When they talk about “taxes!!!!” they’re talking about taxes for the very wealthiest among us. Like you say, it’s true the rest of us may get some sort of cut but it’s never permanent and is always bound to go up (and that’s not even the real issue anyways but thats a separate discussion). It’s a classic game of bait-and-switch. And based on who those dipshits are, i.e. whores for wealthy people and corporations, that’s how it has to be done. They can’t run a campaign on “cut rich peoples taxes, raise everyone else’s.” If they did that, they’d never win. They can’t win elections if only their actual constituencies voted for them.
  2. Yeah that usually comes before they say “well the problem is that Democrats are in favor of abortion on demand right upon until birth.”
  3. Not on that, no. Smooth as a baby’s ass…but then again that’s only because it’s been open for like 5 years. They’re not a set rate. They change every so often (15-30 minutes iirc). Highest I’ve seen it go is $5.80 between DNT and 75 and that’s going East (usually the less expensive of the two directions).
  4. [Sam Kinison]Nurse Nancyyyy. Nuuuuuuurse Nannnncyyyyyy[/Sam Kinison]
  5. Selectively choosing Republican witnesses. Cool!
  6. Is that what they've been doing for these hearings? I tend not to watch Fox News (incredibly bad for my anus), but I did happen to catch a clip of Cavuto saying that some other testimony (I think regarding the requested pardons) was devastating. Are Tucker/Ingraham/Hannity et al still on this line about how 1/6 was just some organic dust up and that this committee is just a deep state smear campaign?
  7. Can anyone imagine how many heads would have exploded if Romney legit won in 2012 and Obama did all the shit that was described today?
  8. How about the original legal definition of terrorism as given by the military? ”the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear” -Army TRADOC pamphlet 525-37, 1984
  9. Silly man. McDonald’s doesn’t make steak
  10. On this date 25 years ago
  11. They knew full well that was bullshit the exact moment they were saying it.
  12. And we’re gonna have the best dragons, ok? The best dragons. On day one, we will begin working on an ice wall, and we’re gonna make the wildlings pay for it. Oh and this story about my kids being the product of incest? Total fake news, ok? Fake news supplied by the Chinese to advance global warming
  13. Shocking there are enough Trumpkins on twitter to make him trend, yes
  14. Only if it’s performed by a priest
  15. It’s the same as the football thing: people expect everything to come out perfect when cooked out of a fucking microwave
  16. And have George Foreman officiate?
  17. No, Dana. You ate queso and then shit into a pyrex. Just because it came out of you doesn't mean you "made" it.
  18. You’ve already exposed yourself as a complete moron who hasn’t the foggiest conception of what judicial precedent even is and now you want to make believe and pretend that you’ve read the the constitution when you clearly haven’t?
  19. Oh and side note, I’m hoping that somewhere there’s a Satanist football coach ready to shake shit up:
  20. It’s only possible if one thinks the world works the way it’s described in a Civics 101 course
  21. Either that or desecration of a human corpse.
  22. The two concepts are birds of a feather
  23. It must also be said that in addition to what you’ve already pointed to re: the Constitution, it is also the world’s first secular Constitution. Religious people don’t like to hear that. They like to thunder loudly the phrase “endowed by their creator,” wholly ignoring that 1) that line is deliberately vague and in no way champions the kind of theocracy these modern day losers want to live in and 2) it’s not even in the Constitution and whoever taught them to say that was teaching them how to play sleight of hand. The spirit of this Dobbs ruling absolutely stinks of a fundamental misunderstanding of one particular religious text. That can never be the basis of law here, nor can it be the basis of the laws they intend to pervert and distort if/when they actually do revisit the aforementioned bodily autonomy cases. I mean just I would invite those who are masturbating over this Dobbs ruling to read through amendments 1-8 and tell me that’s not the case. In each one, as I read them, it’s basically saying because we’re already entitled to do X, the government cannot do Y. And since that’s the case, yeah, the constitution bears no burden to enumerate what citizens can or cannot do. That’s what you lawyers like to refer to as “beyond the scope.” Geez talk about a losing proposition. And those old articles from that Tweet should tell you that on the abortion issue in particular, they no doubt would have sided with the majority in Roe. They certainly would have chastised White’s asinine dissent to it.
  24. Very worth the read
×
×
  • Create New...