If you're a Centrist Democrat, RR is close company, not that there are any Centrist Democrats anymore. (I would know.)clubgop wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:08 amIf you listen now you'll hear liberals call Ronald Reagan a centrist Democrat to fit their narrative. So bad example there.The Conservative wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:49 amRonald Regan was my first introduction to the Republican Party. I grew up realizing that most of what Mass was shoveling was a lie.
Now, we are having Republicans that are spineless sheep...
Trump's SCOTUS
-
- Posts: 18679
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
I don't know when the next seat will open up, but I want our little clique at least to keep some awareness of Judge Donny Willett in the meantime.
Judge Don Willett Stands Out on Criminal Justice Reform
The 5th Circuit judge weighs in on qualified immunity, criminal sentencing, and false imprisonment.
This is the guy.Indeed, in the past three months alone, Willett has written three different opinions that are likely to please civil libertarians of every stripe.
. . .
First, in August, Willett took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields police officers and other government officials from being sued over violations of constitutional rights.
. . .
Second, in October, Willett wrote a unanimous 5th Circuit ruling that voided three "special conditions" for supervised release imposed upon a criminal defendant at sentencing.
. . .
Finally, also in October, Willett wrote a unanimous 5th Circuit opinion allowing an innocent man to sue for damages for false imprisonment.
-
- Posts: 28266
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Speaker to Animals wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:22 amOh is Captain Save-a-Ho back? LMFAO.
Get outside here you fucking liberal. Go he a womanz ally at HuffPo.
Here's some Wisdom from Vox Populi on #MeToo
Ironically, a genuine misogynistic woman-hater is considerably safer in the current environment than the most passionate confirmed male feminist. I don't hate women, but I have never trusted them or believed in their doe-eyed innocence, which is probably why I've never had any problem in this regard even though feminists have hated me since 2001.
My habits are pretty straightforward. Don't touch women and never initiate contact with them. Don't talk to women outside the friends and family circle except to exchange the customary civilities or to do business with them. Don't express attraction to women. Don't betray any emotion or vulnerabilities to women. Don't permit yourself to be put into situations where you are alone with women. Don't allow your mind to be distracted by a pretty face or a shapely figure. When in doubt, walk away.
There are a few exceptions, of course, but they are women who have proved, over time, that they are individuals who can be trusted, and not merely in the context of male-female relations either.
At the end of the day, I just like Spacebunny a lot better than the rest of them, so it's less a series of intentional behavioral guidelines than a lack of interest on my part.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/10/the- ... metoo.html
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 18679
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Reading that makes me think of how religion, specifically Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons, view women: as something to be feared for their ability to destroy men through accusations.
Notice how Sarsour wears a hijab, and there are now hijab stores in the mall. The Left is so obviously regressive (dress, speech, liberty), yet builds their house on supposed liberalism.
Who is controlling the MSM? Really? It's got to be Saudi Arabia or something, or the Illuminati, or the Rothchilds, or somebody like that?
Notice how Sarsour wears a hijab, and there are now hijab stores in the mall. The Left is so obviously regressive (dress, speech, liberty), yet builds their house on supposed liberalism.
Who is controlling the MSM? Really? It's got to be Saudi Arabia or something, or the Illuminati, or the Rothchilds, or somebody like that?
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change
-
- Posts: 28266
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
The VP piece certainly makes me understand that traditional male engagement of women were not just about some stodgy old philosophy that came out of the Victorian Era. There was a good reason that males engaged women at arms reach, and it may have been just as much about self protection as reverence to females.
I don't know who controls the media, but it's definitely being used to promote the Proglodyte Globalist Agenda, which includes tearing down all traditions. There is a definite movement attempting to destroy male influence and power, while replacing it with women.
I don't know who controls the media, but it's definitely being used to promote the Proglodyte Globalist Agenda, which includes tearing down all traditions. There is a definite movement attempting to destroy male influence and power, while replacing it with women.
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 18679
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Probably, since women were property throughout most of history, if a man was not circumspect around a woman, the property-owner would kill him.
Women don't want to be property, and they can't be around men in a liberal society because testosterone gives men an advantage, so they want to put themselves in charge of an illiberal regressive society, which is what makes Socialism attractive to them. It doesn't have to be a monolithic overlord like the Rothchilds forcing the One World Order on us, it could simply be women in high places of power loosely coordinating. The irony is that they use men's violence against them.
Women don't want to be property, and they can't be around men in a liberal society because testosterone gives men an advantage, so they want to put themselves in charge of an illiberal regressive society, which is what makes Socialism attractive to them. It doesn't have to be a monolithic overlord like the Rothchilds forcing the One World Order on us, it could simply be women in high places of power loosely coordinating. The irony is that they use men's violence against them.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change
-
- Posts: 28266
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Let me throw this curve ball at you ?
Is Avenatti a Trump Agent, or just a stupid media whore ?
The guy really blew up any chance Ms Ford had of credibility. He lost so miserably with the Horse Face Case that she has to pay legal fees, and he's just plain making Never Trumpers look awful.
Is Avenatti a Trump Agent, or just a stupid media whore ?
The guy really blew up any chance Ms Ford had of credibility. He lost so miserably with the Horse Face Case that she has to pay legal fees, and he's just plain making Never Trumpers look awful.
PLATA O PLOMO
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience
-
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
Could be both, definitely stupid media whore. Just add another name to the list of the #Resist 15 minutes of fame.C-Mag wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:21 amLet me throw this curve ball at you ?
Is Avenatti a Trump Agent, or just a stupid media whore ?
The guy really blew up any chance Ms Ford had of credibility. He lost so miserably with the Horse Face Case that she has to pay legal fees, and he's just plain making Never Trumpers look awful.
Comey
Mueller
Sarsour
Daniels
Avenatti
The parkland kids
All were supposed to take a bite of trump all become footnotes.
-
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm
Re: Trump's SCOTUS
I dont know about that. It's a different country much too partisan for that.Ronald Reagan would’ve had a field day today if he was running for president, he probably would’ve carried all 50 states And Hillary Clinton as well as Donald Trump would’ve been a smear on his boot.