RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The Wall
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 557
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 11:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:

Drive north of Sunset or even north of Santa Monica Blvd in Beverly Hills and you will see what the people who fund the Democratic Party really think of walls.


I'm not sure I believe that because a person has a fence or wall around their property extrapolates to they are being disingenuous regarding a Southern Border Wall so that they may continue to have cheap domestic help.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12158
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 12:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

huskiemaniac wrote:
I'm not sure I believe that because a person has a fence or wall around their property extrapolates to they are being disingenuous regarding a Southern Border Wall so that they may continue to have cheap domestic help.


You needn't bother, Huskie.....this thread is no longer for any of us with 'divergent' ideas.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19937



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 1:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
huskiemaniac wrote:
I'm not sure I believe that because a person has a fence or wall around their property extrapolates to they are being disingenuous regarding a Southern Border Wall so that they may continue to have cheap domestic help.


You needn't bother, Huskie.....this thread is no longer for any of us with 'divergent' ideas.


The TRUTH is that this entire forum has become a place that is 'no longer' for any with 'divergent' ideas. It has also become a place where so many of you dance around the camp fire in masks and loin cloths at the few people here putting their hearts and souls and reputations into lengthy thought out pieces of writing. A quick dismissive remark. Some humiliating bon mot means more than people sharing expertise and experience and on-the-ground perspectives. But that's fine, whatever.

But I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to make sure that the idea that say tfan or me are somehow irrational xenophobics in the face of all you brilliant pure-hearted right-minded progressives is challenged and that people have Area 51 as a safe place to work out and share their thoughts. Everyone.

As far as huskiemaniac. I'm glad you're not sure. Keep thinking about it. I'm a lifelong Democrat. A Pacifica Radio progressive. All I'm telling you is that the wealthiest people on the planet are behaving exactly as we as progressives would have traditionally expected them to behave. That's what they're doing here. In California, where they and I live.

You can listen to me or tune me out and call me a racist. And you can do like Howee and say, You know, this jammer dude whose's been running the website I've been hanging out on for the better part of two decades, he's not my friend, there's no reason I should trust him. Let me turn on the BBC and see what they have to say about what's happening in California.

You can do that. But you ought to believe me. I know it's a challenging perspective I'm putting out there. And you don't have to tell me that it's not something you're hearing anywhere else. I'm acutely aware of that. But I'm rational, mature, educated, honest, and I have absolutely no reason to lie. I'm also taking a chance with my future prosperity and that would also include, of course, my health and happiness, by speaking out as harshly as I do about California, illegal immigration, and sexual predation in Hollywood.

But you guys would no nothing about any of that either.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59816
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 1:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
But I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to make sure that the idea that say tfan or me are somehow irrational xenophobics


tfan more than amply demonstrated that with his insistence that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law fairly and objectively, a claim he has not made about judges of any other ethnicity.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19937



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 2:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
But I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to make sure that the idea that say tfan or me are somehow irrational xenophobics


tfan more than amply demonstrated that with his insistence that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law fairly and objectively, a claim he has not made about judges of any other ethnicity.


Well I didn't see that. I think white people have proven without a shadow of a doubt that WE cannot always be trusted to administer the law fairly and objectively without bias in regards to ethnicity. Would you agree with that statement? Yes, is the answer to that question, jammer.

Now do you think that other ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, are immune to the possibility of administering the law without consideration or bias for their own kind? Or is it something only white people are capable of?

I personally don't trust people. I don't trust human beings. I don't trust our legal system which is predicated on the law being applied without bias by human beings. I realize it is part of the social contract in an orderly society to maintain full faith in the legal system but we all know that few people look at our legal system that way. Too many lawyers exist to exploit the law.

So I'm not signing off on something someone else said here. I absolutely do not agree that Mexican judges would be unable to apply the law fairly without bias for or against anyone based on their ethnicity. On the other hand, I also believe that judges of all ethnicities including (and by shear numbers one might say especially) white judges can be expected at some time or another to be unfairly biased for their own kind or against someone who is not. Maybe it's rare. Maybe. We have no way of knowing.

There are other biases and they are very real. In a showbiz town? Uh, you get showbiz friendly judges. In liberal districts, you get liberal judges and vice versa.

So maybe tfan was provocatively suggesting thinking along these lines. You know what I mean by provocatively... as you've been known to do so many times over the years. Shocked You have posted statements that are at first blush reprehensible. I guess to stir the pot and then wait for people to figure out the truth in whatever it is you said. We don't all owe each other absolute clarity in every single keystroke. Some of you guys really take pleasure in getting people's goat. Tell me I'm wrong.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59816
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 3:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
Now do you think that other ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, are immune to the possibility of administering the law without consideration or bias for their own kind? Or is it something only white people are capable of?


It's not wise or accurate or useful to make generalizations about people based on extraneous factors.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7485



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 5:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
But I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to make sure that the idea that say tfan or me are somehow irrational xenophobics


tfan more than amply demonstrated that with his insistence that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law fairly and objectively, a claim he has not made about judges of any other ethnicity.


pilight more than amply demonstrates his ability to become a CNN prime time talking head prevaricator. That bogus claim was also made with regard to Trump by lawyers on CNN. Talking about a son of Mexican immigrants who belonged to a group that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien being likely to be biased against Trump - with polls showing that more than 80% of Hispanics (which includes more than just people that "Mexico sends") having an unfavorable opinion of Trump - is not "insisting that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law". We are talking about one specific case with one specific situation. Don't try and broaden it to make a false claim. If Trump had disparaged Lutherans and polls showed that over 80% of Lutherans consistently had an unfavorable opinion of Trump, and the judge was a devout Lutheran, I would have said he would likely be biased against Trump. I haven't commented on judges of other ethnicities and coincidentally there has been no discussion of judges of another ethnicity trying a case in which the defendant is consistently shown via polling to be viewed unfavorably by over 80% of the people of that ethnicity.

The idea that judges always put aside their personal bias because they are "professional" that you and justintyme and all the talking heads on CNN claimed is just an opinion. It can't be proven either way and stating it with umbrage doesn't make it more than an opinion. To save money on judges and limit outrage on decisions we use "they always put aside their bias except if they know someone involved in the case". But we see that the Supreme Court will split 5-4 on issues that are polarizing, with good correlation with regard to the parties that nominated them. justintyme will chalk that up to one group reading the constitution and the other reading between the lines of the constitution or as they put it "viewing the constitution as a living document". But oddly enough, both techniques consistently result in conservative-leaning or liberal-leaning thinking. When an Obama policy is challenged, conservative judges look at the constitution and see justification to oppose it. But when a Bush policy is challenged, conservative judges look at the constitution and see justification to approve it. Ditto for liberal judges reading between the lines and seeing justification for Obama decisions and reading between the lines and seeing no justification for a Bush decision. But the good news is that judges are limited in what they can do based on the facts of the case.




Last edited by tfan on 02/28/19 7:08 pm; edited 8 times in total
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7485



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 5:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Now do you think that other ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, are immune to the possibility of administering the law without consideration or bias for their own kind? Or is it something only white people are capable of?


It's not wise or accurate or useful to make generalizations about people based on extraneous factors.


How did you come to the conclusion that it would not be accurate or useful to believe it is likely that a judge of Mexican descent and who belonged to a professional group that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien, would be biased against a man who more than 80% of Hispanics (not just Mexicans) consistently had a negative view of and who had disparaged illegal aliens from Mexico?




Last edited by tfan on 02/28/19 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12158
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 6:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
And you can do like Howee and say, You know, this jammer dude whose's been running the website I've been hanging out on for the better part of two decades, he's not my friend, there's no reason I should trust him. Let me turn on the BBC and see what they have to say about what's happening in California.


And what "Howee" ever said anything like that?

THAT perspective very brightly illuminates YOUR bias, sir: I've only contended that Californians are NOT supremely qualified to anoint themselves Purveyors of Immigration Truths. Valid perspectives, perhaps, but I prefer a much wider base of information, such as my friends and relatives who live down there. And it's PBS, not BBC that I rely on. Wink



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19937



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 7:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, I have a bias towards the BBC. Except when it comes to illuminating me on what I've learned with my own life experiences. And I would listen with wrapt attention to what my long time friends here on Rebkell's might share as I feel like we have developed somewhat personal relationships and understandings about each other.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19937



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/19 9:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
But I'm going to speak my mind and I'm going to make sure that the idea that say tfan or me are somehow irrational xenophobics


tfan more than amply demonstrated that with his insistence that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law fairly and objectively, a claim he has not made about judges of any other ethnicity.


pilight more than amply demonstrates his ability to become a CNN prime time talking head prevaricator. That bogus claim was also made with regard to Trump by lawyers on CNN. Talking about a son of Mexican immigrants who belonged to a group that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien being likely to be biased against Trump - with polls showing that more than 80% of Hispanics (which includes more than just people that "Mexico sends") having an unfavorable opinion of Trump - is not "insisting that judges of Mexican descent cannot be trusted to administer the law". We are talking about one specific case with one specific situation. Don't try and broaden it to make a false claim. If Trump had disparaged Lutherans and polls showed that over 80% of Lutherans consistently had an unfavorable opinion of Trump, and the judge was a devout Lutheran, I would have said he would likely be biased against Trump. I haven't commented on judges of other ethnicities and coincidentally there has been no discussion of judges of another ethnicity trying a case in which the defendant is consistently shown via polling to be viewed unfavorably by over 80% of the people of that ethnicity.

The idea that judges always put aside their personal bias because they are "professional" that you and justintyme and all the talking heads on CNN claimed is just an opinion. It can't be proven either way and stating it with umbrage doesn't make it more than an opinion. To save money on judges and limit outrage on decisions we use "they always put aside their bias except if they know someone involved in the case". But we see that the Supreme Court will split 5-4 on issues that are polarizing, with good correlation with regard to the parties that nominated them. justintyme will chalk that up to one group reading the constitution and the other reading between the lines of the constitution or as they put it "viewing the constitution as a living document". But oddly enough, both techniques consistently result in conservative-leaning or liberal-leaning thinking. When an Obama policy is challenged, conservative judges look at the constitution and see justification to oppose it. But when a Bush policy is challenged, conservative judges look at the constitution and see justification to approve it. Ditto for liberal judges reading between the lines and seeing justification for Obama decisions and reading between the lines and seeing no justification for a Bush decision. But the good news is that judges are limited in what they can do based on the facts of the case.


tfan wrote:
pilight wrote:
jammerbirdi wrote:
Now do you think that other ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, are immune to the possibility of administering the law without consideration or bias for their own kind? Or is it something only white people are capable of?


It's not wise or accurate or useful to make generalizations about people based on extraneous factors.


How did you come to the conclusion that it would not be accurate or useful to believe it is likely that a judge of Mexican descent and who belonged to a professional group that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien, would be biased against a man who more than 80% of Hispanics (not just Mexicans) consistently had a negative view of and who had disparaged illegal aliens from Mexico?


Okay. Shocked So I've tried to catch every relevant quote in this post and I hope I didn't over do it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, pilight. You judged and then publicly CONDEMNED tfan as a xenophobe in a typical one sentence comment. What isn't so typical is the faulty logic you used to summate your damning assessment of tfan. But then, back to you being you, you don't provide any additional analysis or background for your conclusion.

And you obviously don't care about at least a couple of things. So you a) don't care about tfan as a person. A fellow poster here. You don't care b) about hurting his standing or reputation here in this group or potentially inspiring or contributing to him being possibly exposed in real life as being a xenophobe and a racist who actively posts anti-illegal immigration rants online.

You also plainly don't care if your condemnation of him as a xenophobe cools his desire to put himself out there and share his opinions here on Rebkell's. Or, as I would look at it, sharing his experiences and perspective and analysis with this message board. Providing content. Excellent content, I would add. And content that goes against the prevailing political sentiments of this message board. All to a part of Rebkell's that historically at times struggles to get and keep good threads and good conversations going.

And I'm going to say that this kind of disregard has always represented the worst of our message board experiences here and a thoughtful and respectful giving the benefit of the doubt kind of regard for the thoughts and opinions of fellow posters here has always represented the best of the message board experience here.

tfan, for his part, provides many sentences and at least a couple of paragraphs of detail and explanation and LOGIC in defense of what he actually has said and meant. And not content with doing just that, he does some heavy lifting just to show off and makes a pretty good effort of Defending the Donald in the process.

So here it is, pilight. I am a pot stirrer. I come to Rebkells, and I came to MSNBC, and ESPN, like an old restaurant manager who doesn't want to see empty seats, or maybe as a guy with a band who played way way WAY too many nights in front of empty rooms. If I see this place as being asleep I will light a Bic lighter under everyone's nostrils, if I can. I try to be provocative. I post stuff that's on the edge politically because I know in this context that's going to likely get a lively debate going. I'm not dishonest though. I actually have a very different take on many political issues so I have a repertoire of stuff I can draw from. But technically, I think this all does fall under the category of trolling.

You are a contrarian. But we all know that beyond the great stuff you post on women's basketball, what you do a lot of is also technically trolling. Neither one of us is perfect but the overall intent and affect of the kind of trolling we both engage in is positive and actually helpful to the Rebkell's community.

But what isn't helpful at all is when people are attacked, and I'll characterize it as attacked, for posting long detailed well-thought out perspectives that fly in the face of the prevailing political opinions of this board.

You just called this guy a xenophobe because of something YOU said he'd posted about judges and he posted a pretty good statement for the case that he isn't a xenophobe at all but IS someone with a fairly unforgivingly realistic perspective on how human nature plays into our legal system.

It doesn't APPEAR, at least to me, however, that you or anyone else is interested at all in tfan's nuanced explanation as to why he feels the way he feels. I've experienced that myself here for years. But this isn't about me. This is about tfan. Is it too deep for people? Is it too problematic for people to acknowledge what he's offered here. Are people just looking for opportunities to virtue signal.

Or is a calm logical and credible sounding defense of himself just inconvenient to people who are out to scorn and shame political perspectives they don't want here off the board?

Let's get back to my favorite subject. Me. So I'm, as blue once said, "the board junkie who was here first." Unofficially looking out for this community for now 20 years. An admin here for 14. I post stuff to stir the pot, complicated dazzling Beverly Hills jammer-snazzle. When I'm inspired to be here, I provide a lot of content and I try to make sure it meets a standard that I can look back on and be proud of. But yeah, I'm doing it and have been doing it and driven to do it because I have this thing in me that wants this place, Rebkell's, to survive and thrive, because I feel that IS a part of my responsibility.

And so I'm posting stuff to that end and I get people here trying to shut ME down? Trying to attach toxic labels to me, practicing what has become a tactic for crushing or squeezing political discussions into narrowly acceptable topic ranges. This stuff is happening to the person who's trying to stimulate activity on Reb's board?

So what we haven't talked about is what is happening in the online world outside of Rebkell's... AND... the real world. Because that is a new context we all must be aware of. Someone can go from anonymity to being unemployed and unemployable in a matter of hours due to the kind of destruction that comes with being attached to unacceptable political opinions.

A few weeks ago Alyssa Milano said that the MAGA hat is the new KKK hood. I'm sure a lot of people here loved that and agree. About half the people in this country probably agree with her, too. Progressives and powerful Hollywood stars agreed. So the MAGA hat is based on Donald Trump's campaign slogan, as everyone here knows. So if the MAGA hat is the new KKK hood, and you can 'out' someone as a Trump voter, then you can, in this EVER changing treacherous political landscape, effectively, quite effectively I would suggest, taint that person as a modern day member of the KKK. Which is the kind of character destruction that is now COMMONPLACE, as you would KNOW if you're reading from wider ranging perspectives and sources online.

So when I post long detailed on the ground stuff about what truly beats in the hearts of the wealthiest people in the world, what their true attitudes and motivations are, IMO, and someone says to me, So, jammer, you going to vote for Trump again? That person is tagging me, a person who voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general, as a Trump voter, putting a MAGA hat on my head, what is essentially now taken by many as a modern day KKK hood. And that's happening now here on the explosive internet where things can, in a person's life, go from zero to 200 MPH and back down to now you're a zero in a matter of hours.

All that for a lifelong liberal progressive talking trash about rich people. Shocked

"I wasn't trolling you. I honestly thought you voted for Trump."

"tfan, was it worth it voting for Trump?"

These are KKK hoods being thrown over people's heads. Not new. During the 2016 election year, I posted similar shit about the affluent of California and why they support illegal immigration, and someone quoted me with YouTube videos of crosses burning. But now it's easier than ever.

And I would add a couple of things. No one knows my heart, apparently. I think people would if they were reading me honestly and carefully and without their own biases. If there is ONE group of people who have my heart in California it is Mexicans. But I have an understanding of this issue of illegal immigration that reflects both the complexity of the issue, as I see it, and my own capacity for understanding that complexity.

You took issue, pilight, with me dealing with something going on here. Exactly what I described above. But why wouldn't you? lol. You're kind of cool with tossing around eternal damnation on underserving people yourself.

But I want people to be comfortable posting their opinions and their life experiences that form those opinions, from wherever they may be, here on Rebkell's. I don't want people discouraging any of that by pushing these now devastatingly toxic buttons like calling a Democratic Bernie/Hillary voter a Trump voter or sticking their noses into the sanctity of tfan's voting booth in order to discourage either of us or anyone else taking it all in from posting content here that falls outside the prevailing political leanings of this group as a whole.

That's all.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
huskiemaniac



Joined: 24 Nov 2004
Posts: 557
Location: NE CT


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/19 10:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7485



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/19 4:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Border patrol: 300 percent spike in family apprehensions creates 'humanitarian crisis'


Highest number of people being caught since second fencing built post-2006. It appears to be common knowledge that if you have a minor in your party you go on through.

Quote:
The number of families crossing into the United States is driving the largest number apprehensions at the southern border since 2005.

The influx is being driven by a 300 percent increase in the number of people crossing as part of families compared with 2018. Families, along with unaccompanied children, account for 60 percent of all apprehensions since Oct. 1.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 52620



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/19 9:34 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

<iframe width="630" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZQ-cURrFLVk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5685



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/19 4:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Trump wants 8.6B more for the wall. Laughing


[quote]"Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border," Trump tweeted on Saturday. [quote]

What an idiot. It's really sad.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/10/trump-border-wall-8-6-billion-more-funding/3123288002/



_________________
"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 52620



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 10:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 52620



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/19 10:46 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 7485



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/16/19 12:35 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Trump wants 8.6B more for the wall. Laughing


Quote:
"Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border," Trump tweeted on Saturday.


What an idiot. It's really sad.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/10/trump-border-wall-8-6-billion-more-funding/3123288002/


I may be repeating myself here, but Ann Coulter wrote a book called In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! and yet she has had the best digs at Trump of anybody once she saw him falling short or backtracking on everything immigration and illegal immigration-related. One example is GUTLESS PRESIDENT IN WALL-LESS COUNTRY.


Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 52620



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/07/19 10:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:
<iframe width="630" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZQ-cURrFLVk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Nielsen (featured in this video) resigns.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 52620



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 12:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16663
Location: way station of life


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 1:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:


that's some cold-ass shit. and that's about the size of it.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11892
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 8:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

excuse me. excuse me! did you see my ball?! people are saying- and you know this- it was a great drive off the tee- tremendous drive. I'm not saying it- some very, very good PEEP-ull said it. hello?! hello?! btw, i'm hiring. here's my card, call my son donnie jr. He'll set you up, nice job, very very nice job. very beautiful uniforms, $2/hr...



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
toad455



Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 20373



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 8:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Shades wrote:


The artist got fired for this drawing. Mad



_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!

Twitter: @TBRBWAY
sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16663
Location: way station of life


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 11:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

toad455 wrote:
Shades wrote:


The artist got fired for this drawing. Mad


i had to check it out when i saw this. Rolling Eyes so wrong. maybe a crowdfunding will get going.

the daily kos wrote:
If the editors of Brunswick News felt that de Adder’s cartoon (pictured above) crossed the line between comforting gobbledy-gook and into frightening objective truth, they were perfectly free not to publish the offending truthiness and ask for another submission.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/30/1868423/-Canadian-Political-Cartoonist-Michael-de-Adder-Let-Go-for-Submitting-A-Too-On-The-Nose-Cartoon



_________________
no justice, no peace.
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11892
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/30/19 4:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

of course. There are more (Republican) wadded panties over saying "Concentration Camps" than regarding the abuse, and deaths, of the victims IN the concentration camps.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin