Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

In order to analyze something objectively, you need to have all available information. Based on the below, you're analyzing based on partial information, which is the equivalent to analyzing it based upon misinformation. If you can't see that, you're being neither objective nor rational. 

 

It was sarcasm. I read the opinion referenced and it didn't say what Wildcat says it did.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

Great, another one doing his “own research”. 

Posted
Just now, CTC2 said:

Great, another one doing his “own research”. 

Roberts has ruled against Trump and the GOP in the past.  That's it.  That's the whole point some people here don't want to recognize for some reason. It doesn't take much "research" to know that about Roberts. It should be common knowledge.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, so who do you think John Roberts is?

He's a full-on right-wing nut just like Alito and Thomas and he does not care at all about the Americans who are hurt by this Court's rulings and he's not the institutionalist many believe him to be. I think he wants a slower roll than Alito and Thomas in enacting their extremist vision of the America they desire, but his vision is the same. He also doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy and he's happy with the Court's power and knows that as long as he doesn't do anything that will shake the trees of the other two branches of government, as long as he doesn't challenge Trump's supreme authority, his station is secure and his extremist vision of the remaking of America is guaranteed. It's just a question of how fast it happens.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Roberts has ruled against Trump and the GOP in the past.  That's it.  That's the whole point some people here don't want to recognize for some reason. It doesn't take much "research" to know that about Roberts. It should be common knowledge.

Does not matter. He voted for the immunity ruling which will ultimately be a major cause of our undoing. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

How are things in Gardiner, the town built to service yellowstone tourism, making out?

 

IMG_2934.thumb.jpeg.f10eb3e89c5176a265735e9df2faafbb.jpeg


IMG_2935.thumb.jpeg.95b6a206b60ff95bba0257a891c7f05b.jpeg

IMG_2936.thumb.jpeg.80d6994908d97c9839815a3637341642.jpeg

 

And for which candidate did the people of park county montana vote?

 

IMG_2937.thumb.jpeg.8cca3526139e4750cd1416112c3d6be8.jpeg


Eat shit, gardiner.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

He's a full-on right-wing nut just like Alito and Thomas and he does not care at all about the Americans who are hurt by this Court's rulings and he's not the institutionalist many believe him to be. I think he wants a slower roll than Alito and Thomas in enacting their extremist vision of the America they desire, but his vision is the same. He also doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy and he's happy with the Court's power and knows that as long as he doesn't do anything that will shake the trees of the other two branches of government, as long as he doesn't challenge Trump's supreme authority, his station is secure and his extremist vision of the remaking of America is guaranteed. It's just a question of how fast it happens.

 

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

Posted
1 minute ago, CTC2 said:

Does not matter. He voted for the immunity ruling which will ultimately be a major cause of our undoing. 

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

cool, you're in the minority on this one and this is the leopards thread. feel free to start your own Roberts fanboi thread

Posted
38 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

A lot of people about to get sizeable tax reductions from all this... it's just not how they envisioned getting it.

Fox News could actually sell this to 40% of this moronic country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

You're wrong, based on his rulings alone. See: Trump vs Anderson and Trump vs United States

Posted
6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

In case anybody actually patronizes Steak 'n Shake, there's this:

 

Screenshot 2025-04-03 at 10.15.43 AM.png


Were they hacked? That’s fucking moronic.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

cool, you're in the minority on this one and this is the leopards thread. feel free to start your own Roberts fanboi thread

LOL, fanboi. Okay. As this is the Leopards thread I'll leave it alone, but when he's the swing vote or there is a 9-0 majority punking Trump's EOs I will bring it back up elsewhere.

Posted

ojo, i would just encourage you to consider that roberts is almost wholly responsible for the fact that elon musk can show up in wisconsin and just pay voters a million dollars to vote.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

 

Quote

Impeachment is also not really a serious threat to any federal judge. Even if there are enough votes to pass articles of impeachment against one in the House of Representatives, there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate. An additional 14 Democrats’ votes would be needed to remove a targeted judge from office, and it is doubtful that many would be up for grabs. Trumpworld figures like Elon Musk can fulminate about the dangers of a “judicial coup” and the supposed “will of the people” all they want: The math just isn’t there.

It would go too far to say that Roberts is actively signaling to Trump that the high court will overturn or curb some of the lower court orders that are vexing him. The chief justice is not so blunt when he acts in this capacity. But it would also be a mistake to read Roberts’s statement as either a rebuke of Trump’s actions or a defense of the lower courts’ rulings. He is merely suggesting that a more “appropriate response” would be to run things by Roberts and his co-workers first. I doubt Trump would be disappointed with the result.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/192949/john-roberts-rebuke-trump-judges

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

You're wrong, based on his rulings alone. See: Trump vs Anderson and Trump vs United States

Anderson: Sec. 3 of the 14th left to Congress to enforce.  Right on the law.

Trump v. U.S.: Immune for official acts. Did not determine that acts of insurrection were official acts. Left it to lower courts. Right on the law.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

Nobody who is even passingly familiar with John Roberts would think he does this.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Anderson: Sec. 3 of the 14th left to Congress to enforce.  Right on the law.

Trump v. U.S.: Immune for official acts. Did not determine that acts of insurrection were official acts. Left it to lower courts. Right on the law.

It should be easy for you to cite the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that left it to Congress to enforce, then. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, GenXer said:

How are things in Gardiner, the town built to service yellowstone tourism, making out?

 

IMG_2934.thumb.jpeg.f10eb3e89c5176a265735e9df2faafbb.jpeg


IMG_2935.thumb.jpeg.95b6a206b60ff95bba0257a891c7f05b.jpeg

IMG_2936.thumb.jpeg.80d6994908d97c9839815a3637341642.jpeg

 

And for which candidate did the people of park county montana vote?

 

IMG_2937.thumb.jpeg.8cca3526139e4750cd1416112c3d6be8.jpeg


Eat shit, gardiner.

Spent three summers of my 20s as a fishing guide out of a Yellowstone-area fly shop.  All those towns stand to be hit hard.  Their economy is built on the disposable income of outdoorsmen.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

ojo, i would just encourage you to consider that roberts is almost wholly responsible for the fact that elon musk can show up in wisconsin and just pay voters a million dollars to vote.

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

You should read this: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html

Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It should be easy for you to cite the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that left it to Congress to enforce, then. 

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

I just answered your question.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I've read it. It doesn't say anything that disproves my point.

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

Edited by Ojo Rojo
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

Almost as hilarious as claiming John Roberts isn't a political actor  when the reality is that he's overseen the most activist Supreme Court since the Lochner era. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
30 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

Mr. Rojo, sir, I am the Wallet Inspector. You must hand over your wallet to me for inspection.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Concept of a tax cut.

Well lots of people are getting tax cuts next year. When you make less money, you pay less in taxes. Laid off federal workers must be rejoicing!
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

I’m not going to argue with you but I disagree it was the law. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

Which foreign war would you like us to end?  The one in Afghanistan?  Wait, someone already did that.  Your boy is going to start a war, not end one.

Cutting costs?  They're gonna raise the debt ceiling after they're done laying off federal employees and replacing them with loyalists, you dipshit.

Killing woke BS?  You elected a full-blown fascist because you were pissed off that some swimmer who was born with a dick beat some other swimmer who was born without a dick.  What state did that even happen in?  That's right, you don't know.  But you know you won't stand for it, because Tucker and Jesse and White Baby Jesus told you not to.

Just stop having thoughts at all.  You're a fucking idiot.  You and your idiotic ilk have killed this country while jerking off to Lee Greenwood records and your F-16 posters.  Also, go fuck yourself.

maxresdefault.jpg

But....amp up the hate and contempt.  No, MORE than that.  MORE.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

You got the promise of a tax cut.

You also got:

Promise of lower grocery prices;

Promise of an end to the war in Ukraine in 24 hours;

Promise of free IVF.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

This one is sooooo good.

I’m convinced this cat is grifting the christians.

jesusdoll. Yeah. A doll. Of jesus. That talks. 

It would be great if the guy, you know, that imposes tariffs could explain how tariffs work as well as the jesusdoll guy.
 

IMG_2938.thumb.jpeg.39d10ff403ae4f3a7c1b506f207f469b.jpeg


IMG_2939.thumb.jpeg.c38801346bdd9e901d675aacbef28bd9.jpeg

 

IMG_2940.thumb.jpeg.6c8b219c65c6358c32f2860ee55513d0.jpeg

 

IMG_2941.thumb.jpeg.3885439b3ebe489209d06d3b21d96dea.jpeg

 

IMG_2942.thumb.jpeg.2897b16d2b9beb56794e9b984995940a.jpeg

 

jesusdoll you ask? I couldn’t resist.

 

IMG_2943.thumb.jpeg.a5d1f87da606c5581a42b34f7c9818d9.jpeg

 

Oh the trials and tribulations god has bestowed upon him…

 

IMG_2944.thumb.jpeg.526d29061a07ca7957e1462cf68c2018.jpeg

IMG_2945.thumb.jpeg.5a232e65982faf4f7c8479a3421c7e13.jpeg

god hath gifted you with another trial: a beastly tangerine one. One that you can add to your tribulations list.

“When a malignant narcissist imposed a godless tax upon our righteous talking plushie, we opened a gofundme”
 

Went to his LinkedIn.  Of course he lives in Nashville.  I'd be stunned if it wasn't Franklin specifically. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

You're an idiot. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

Dude, every Supreme Court Justice ever was a political actor.  Many of the cases before the Court have no real basis for choice or decision in any part of the Constitution or statutes of the country.  They boil down to policy choices that are influenced by many things, including politics.

Like a lot of problems facing Congress are really beyond Congress' capabilities or institutional competence (hence the administrative "state"), more modern justices are trained only in the law, and have never held office outside of the judiciary, so they are, at bottom, really unfamiliar with policy choices.  So, experience, personal and governmental, bears little on their decisions, it boils down to biases and politics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

This is the leopards thread, not the Roberts is just misunderstood and is really really groovy awesome thread.  Take your shit to the SCOTUS thread and leave this one alone.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...