POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Probably what *this* should be called.
User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Wed May 11, 2022 12:18 am

Luna wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:12 am
Yoss wrote:I'll leave my kids (6 and 1) alone in a room for a little bit, but out in public? Fuck no.
but shirley you wouldnt impose what you consider to be good bad for your kids onto other people
I mean, it depends on what we're talking about, right? I think it'd be bad to murder my kids, and I would absolutely support a law preventing someone from murdering theirs. So, there's a line somewhere, sure.

Okay, here's a better story:

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/living/f ... index.html

If the facts presented here are accurate, this is pretty fucked up, I think. Although, like this kid was seven and didn't know his birthdate? It seems like he was acting real fucking weird. I still wonder if there's something else going on. If the cop picks up the kid, takes him home, lectures the mom, then... arrests her on the spot? That's fucking weird, right?

The other stories they mention about letting a kid wander around a park while they work a shift at McDonalds is pretty fucked up if it was like 6-8 hours or something. The lady who left her kids alone in a car is messed up.

It seems to me like these laws are like the truancy bullshit California had, where you are just punishing parents who need help and making the situation worse. All of these stories seem to show laws that aren't working how they were intended and we need to fucking make daycare cheaper, man. We pay ~$400/week for fulltime daycare for a one-year-old. I couldn't afford that shit if I was single and working at McDonalds.

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Wed May 11, 2022 12:19 am

Luna wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:13 am people calling the cops on other people isn't exactly some alien thing:

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... stigation/
So, I'm not sure how this affects your "liberals are evil idiots" narrative, but every liberal I know thinks calling the cops is a fucking bullshit thing to do

User avatar
Luna
...but history refused to change
...but history refused to change
Posts: 2000
Joined: Feb 28, 2020

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Luna » Wed May 11, 2022 12:34 am

Yoss wrote:
So, I'm not sure how this affects your "liberals are evil idiots" narrative, but every liberal I know thinks calling the cops is a fucking bullshit thing to do
in what circumstance?

User avatar
Khaos
They should have sent a poet.
Forum Elf
Posts: 16862
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Khaos » Wed May 11, 2022 12:36 am

they just made daycare cheaper here. it rules

thanks for subsidizing my child care arti

User avatar
Luna
...but history refused to change
...but history refused to change
Posts: 2000
Joined: Feb 28, 2020

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Luna » Wed May 11, 2022 12:42 am

Khaos wrote:they just made daycare cheaper here. it rules

thanks for subsidizing my child care arti
well, i don't mind your kids, but get those other ones out of there

User avatar
pterrus
Sentient Keyboard
Sentient Keyboard
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sep 12, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by pterrus » Wed May 11, 2022 2:18 am

Yoss wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:19 am
Luna wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:13 am people calling the cops on other people isn't exactly some alien thing:

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... stigation/
So, I'm not sure how this affects your "liberals are evil idiots" narrative, but every liberal I know thinks calling the cops is a fucking bullshit thing to do
I do think your average orange tribe Karen is more likely to narc on you for an unattended kid than an average liberal, yeah. But it's not a clean gradient, I think there are a lot of helicopter liberal moms and "when I was a kid we used to x" conservative moms.

User avatar
Luna
...but history refused to change
...but history refused to change
Posts: 2000
Joined: Feb 28, 2020

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Luna » Wed May 11, 2022 2:28 am

pterrus wrote: I do think your average orange tribe Karen is more likely to narc on you for an unattended kid than an average liberal, yeah. But it's not a clean gradient, I think there are a lot of helicopter liberal moms and "when I was a kid we used to x" conservative moms.
what's orange tribe?

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Wed May 11, 2022 2:33 am

Luna wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 2:28 am
pterrus wrote: I do think your average orange tribe Karen is more likely to narc on you for an unattended kid than an average liberal, yeah. But it's not a clean gradient, I think there are a lot of helicopter liberal moms and "when I was a kid we used to x" conservative moms.
what's orange tribe?
Orioles
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
Blissful
"I don’t believe that we will lose life or have to discard cards ourselves."
Sentient Keyboard
Posts: 4490
Joined: Nov 30, 2019

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Blissful » Wed May 11, 2022 3:31 am

Wumpy wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:47 pm do we get to pick what kind of monster

can i be a vampire
im going to be an ooze
Image

User avatar
Crunchums
Forum Elf
Forum Elf
Posts: 16115
Joined: Aug 24, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Crunchums » Wed May 11, 2022 3:58 am

Luna wrote: what's orange tribe?
i assume he means trump supporters (orange man (bad))
u gotta skate

User avatar
Wumpy
uuuuuuuuuUUUUUU
Cardboard Robot
Posts: 1885
Joined: Aug 24, 2018
Contact:

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Wumpy » Wed May 11, 2022 3:58 am

Blissful wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:31 am
Wumpy wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:47 pm do we get to pick what kind of monster

can i be a vampire
im going to be an ooze
that is a p good choice so long as you dont get sucked into a pool filter

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Thu May 12, 2022 1:18 pm

There's a shortage of baby formula in the most powerful country on Earth
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
Rylinks
her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before
Forum Elf
Posts: 12359
Joined: Jun 13, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Rylinks » Thu May 12, 2022 2:48 pm

Alito's leaked opinion has a disclaimer at the end that says overturning roe v. wade will not threaten other rights. This disclaimer reminds me of the disclaimers in Lawrence v. Texas and US v. Windsor, described here in Scalia's dissents:
Lawrence v. Texas wrote: At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence —the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 578. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 574 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen 605*605 sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
US v. Windsor wrote: The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex (securities fraud) marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[ѕ]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Thu May 12, 2022 3:12 pm

So how did he do
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
Rylinks
her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before
Forum Elf
Posts: 12359
Joined: Jun 13, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Rylinks » Thu May 12, 2022 3:24 pm

scalia's predictions were very accurate but i've heard people suggest that casting decisions as sweeping in dissent is a strategic mistake and it's better to cast them narrowly, as kagan does sometimes

probably that doesn't effect the outcome much here though

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:12 pm

Luna wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:34 am
Yoss wrote:
So, I'm not sure how this affects your "liberals are evil idiots" narrative, but every liberal I know thinks calling the cops is a fucking bullshit thing to do
in what circumstance?
In what circumstance re: calling the cops? Like, the "crazy far left" thinks we shouldn't have cops, I don't know what you're asking

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:13 pm

Doug wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:18 pm There's a shortage of baby formula in the most powerful country on Earth
oh shit are you gonna be okay

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Fri May 13, 2022 2:14 pm

Yoss wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:13 pm
Doug wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:18 pm There's a shortage of baby formula in the most powerful country on Earth
oh shit are you gonna be okay
No, I'm not going to be OK, I'm gonna die. What about you
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:16 pm

Doug wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:14 pm
Yoss wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:13 pm
Doug wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:18 pm There's a shortage of baby formula in the most powerful country on Earth
oh shit are you gonna be okay
Uh oh was that post too orange
orange you glad it wasn't banana

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:16 pm

lol the ninja edit

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:19 pm

Rylinks wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:48 pm Alito's leaked opinion has a disclaimer at the end that says overturning roe v. wade will not threaten other rights. This disclaimer reminds me of the disclaimers in Lawrence v. Texas and US v. Windsor, described here in Scalia's dissents:
Lawrence v. Texas wrote: At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence —the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 578. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 574 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen 605*605 sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
US v. Windsor wrote: The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex (securities fraud) marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[ѕ]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
What are your thoughts on the quality of Alito's argument? The assurances that this ruling would only apply to Roe worries me that this is *technically* true, the same way several of them said in their confirmations that Roe was "settled law" or similar. I don't really know what he could say that I would take at implicit face value though. Maybe if he pinky-promised?

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Fri May 13, 2022 2:20 pm

Yoss wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:16 pmlol the ninja edit
It was just that I had a new thought that seemed better
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 2:20 pm

Doug wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:20 pm
Yoss wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:16 pmlol the ninja edit
It was just that I had a new thought that seemed better
I did the same thing but in edit mode

the multiverse is collapsing

User avatar
Luna
...but history refused to change
...but history refused to change
Posts: 2000
Joined: Feb 28, 2020

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Luna » Fri May 13, 2022 2:22 pm

Yoss wrote:
In what circumstance re: calling the cops? Like, the "crazy far left" thinks we shouldn't have cops, I don't know what you're asking
right, so, like, you'd never call the cops? there's no circumstance you or the crazy people you know would call the cops in? an accident? your house being broken into? maybe a person being missing. there's actually a lot of good reasons to call the cops, right? fortunately we don't run into that stuff very often, which i guess makes it a very safe and totally meaningless thing to be against

User avatar
Rylinks
her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before
Forum Elf
Posts: 12359
Joined: Jun 13, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Rylinks » Fri May 13, 2022 2:24 pm

Luna wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:22 pm
Yoss wrote:
In what circumstance re: calling the cops? Like, the "crazy far left" thinks we shouldn't have cops, I don't know what you're asking
right, so, like, you'd never call the cops? there's no circumstance you or the crazy people you know would call the cops in? an accident? your house being broken into? maybe a person being missing. there's actually a lot of good reasons to call the cops, right? fortunately we don't run into that stuff very often, which i guess makes it a very safe and totally meaningless thing to be against
the real crazy far lefties won't call the cops even when one of their friends are shot

they will round up the boys for some mutual aid though

User avatar
Yoss
Posting Automaton
Posting Automaton
Posts: 2247
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Yoss » Fri May 13, 2022 3:20 pm

Luna wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:22 pm
Yoss wrote:
In what circumstance re: calling the cops? Like, the "crazy far left" thinks we shouldn't have cops, I don't know what you're asking
right, so, like, you'd never call the cops? there's no circumstance you or the crazy people you know would call the cops in? an accident? your house being broken into? maybe a person being missing. there's actually a lot of good reasons to call the cops, right? fortunately we don't run into that stuff very often, which i guess makes it a very safe and totally meaningless thing to be against
If you're asking what I think, I believe the cops are involved in lots of situations they maybe shouldn't be and we need more social services to handle certain things. I think there is a big problem in police culture and a lack of accountability for bad cops, while also acknowledging that "cop" is a really, really hard job. So, yes, I would absolutely call the cops in a lot of situations.

I think my issue with how you framed it is it felt like "look what the crazy left is up to now!" but, like, the crazy left want to abolish the police. I think it's good to make a distinction between crazy lefties and progressives and liberals and centrists, rather just "other team bad."

User avatar
Rylinks
her skirt got quite a lot smaller,
but her heart is still the same
size it was before
Forum Elf
Posts: 12359
Joined: Jun 13, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Rylinks » Fri May 13, 2022 5:51 pm

Yoss wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 2:19 pm
Rylinks wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 2:48 pm Alito's leaked opinion has a disclaimer at the end that says overturning roe v. wade will not threaten other rights. This disclaimer reminds me of the disclaimers in Lawrence v. Texas and US v. Windsor, described here in Scalia's dissents:
Lawrence v. Texas wrote: At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence —the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 578. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 574 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen 605*605 sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
US v. Windsor wrote: The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex (securities fraud) marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[ѕ]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex (securities fraud) marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
What are your thoughts on the quality of Alito's argument? The assurances that this ruling would only apply to Roe worries me that this is *technically* true, the same way several of them said in their confirmations that Roe was "settled law" or similar. I don't really know what he could say that I would take at implicit face value though. Maybe if he pinky-promised?
well, as promises or legal arguments i don't think they're worth much. Kennedy's assurances above were all broken within years, and the pattern in Alito's opinion is the same: broad sweeping statements followed by a short disclaimer at the end.

but i think the circumstances are different here. Planned parenthood v. casey said
Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.
this turned out to be wrong, but in most other cases it ends up correct. Support for gay marriage has continually increased since obergefell and is now supported by 2/3rds of the US. The right to use contraception is not well-grounded in the constitution, but anyone supporting a contraception ban today would be seen as a lunatic. There is a coordinated legal movement dedicated to the overturn of roe v. wade. There was a coordinated legal movement dedicated to advancing gay rights. There is no comparable movement for overturning obergefell, let alone contraception rights.

User avatar
Doug
Has anybody seen my parrot
Forum Elf
Posts: 20548
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by Doug » Fri May 13, 2022 6:20 pm

I think we have to cancel the SCOTUS decision. George Takei says it's mean-spirited
It's your turn in Cthulhu Wars
It's your turn in Squirrel Wars
It's your turn in Demon Wars
It's your turn in Wall Street Wars

http://devilsbiscuit.com/

User avatar
seathesee
Sentient Keyboard
Sentient Keyboard
Posts: 5459
Joined: Aug 23, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by seathesee » Fri May 13, 2022 6:24 pm

geroge takei is a rapist
with love, your good friend, seathesee

User avatar
pterrus
Sentient Keyboard
Sentient Keyboard
Posts: 4645
Joined: Sep 12, 2018

Re: POLITICS MOTHERFUCKER

Post by pterrus » Fri May 13, 2022 6:26 pm

Cop is a really hard job yes.

I have a theory that part of the problem is that the job is frequently filled with kind of person who wants to be a cop.

My sister dated a cop once. He was the kind of person who wanted to be a cop. Luckily she recovered from her mistake.

I got nothing but good stuff to say about firefighters though, the kind of people who want to be a firefighters are the best.

Post Reply