Joe Ferguson forever
-
Posts
9,965 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Joe Ferguson forever
-
-
Knives out...et tu brute? They smell blood
-
It wouldn't surprise me if much of the MAGA cult actually admire his bullying and domination of this 27 year old woman.
-
On 5/2/2024 at 11:42 PM, ChiGoose said:
I’m sorry, I suppose the reality of how things actually work is a concept far too difficult for you to understand.
Maybe grab some toy blocks to smash together and leave the rest of this to the adults.
He's too busy anesthetizing, intubating, ventilating, reviving and monitoring critically ill surgical patients, don't you know....
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:
lady killed her chances at VP by doing and writing about killing a dangerous dog vs having it put down.
No, she killed her chances by admitting to being a heartless B word...
-
She's cooked. Even the National Review is calling her out. And the interview on CBS was just cringeworthy. She wouldn't say whether she met Kim but said she had removed the passage about him from her book. She thinks the cult is stupid and she's right. Luckily it's only 30% of the electorate.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/noems-dog-icidal-no-apology-tour-fails-to-convince/
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
REMINDER:
The usual PPP suspects whine and spin their 'takes' on Justice Thomas,
then howl in protest when the left's organized assault on the Supreme Court is documented.
No matter, their complaints will get them nowhere, despite their spittle-ridden posts.
Not ONE example of a case that his opinion has been 'compromised' on has been given.
Why is that ?
Don't bother, there isn't any.
.
the justices unanimously signed a document explaining the rules of ethics. There was no "slamming" of D senators in the signed letter. You and the writer of this article are mischaracterizing it at best, lying at worst. The letter in no way implies that they unanimously agree that all members are following them. The chief justice's refusal to appear before a senate subcommittee based on the premise that few other justices have appeared before congress is weak but within his rights.
This is the case example I alluded to: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf. Others have cited other examples. Watch the hearings and find out.....
-
25 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
Conflict of interest:
The thread is about Uncle Clarence. If you can't keep up, drop out.
Such language described by Orwell is called doublespeak. It is explained by William Lutz, author of the book “Doublespeak”, as language which “makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. It is language that conceals or prevents thought.”
-
Too bad the R operatives don't agree with the MAGA's here. She being the VP candidate would add a couple percentage points to the D ticket.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4642282-noem-scott-burgum-trump-vp/
“She’s just done, too much drama,” said one Republican senator who stays in touch with Trump.
-
https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-strange-trajectory-of-tucker-carlsons-first-100-shows/
Genuine growth would come from working to broaden that declining base, not merely shoring it up. According to insiders, while the absence of a traditional corporate structure has granted Carlson increased autonomy, it has also eliminated a crucial layer of editorial oversight. These sources have noted a shift towards targeting a less discerning audience, emphasising sensationalism over substantive discourse in order to keep the attention of more credulous viewers — one insider notes a current “audience minus about 10-15 IQ points from the prime-time show” — interested in space aliens and Obama’s alleged gay trysts.
Sounds about right.
-
2 hours ago, Pokebball said:
I'd file some ham sandwiches. Jees, you guys are amazing. You need a flippen clue of what a conflict of interest even is.
i'd like folks like you to disappear. Unfortunately that isn't going to happen. But thanks for playing...Maybe a reading comprehension class would help. You mistook opacity for transparency. It's orwellian doublespeak and you're not good at it.
-
4 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
So you believe Thomas is conflicted by allowing greater transparency?
read the article again. He ruled for opacity that stood to benefit trump and his own wife.
"Alone among the justices, Clarence Thomas said he would have granted Trump’s request to keep the documents on hold."
-
-
15 hours ago, Pokebball said:
Which case?
look it up. i'm not your librarian.
-
2 hours ago, Pokebball said:
What case? It's kind of hard to discuss anything with you without you at least suggesting the case he was conflicted on
“Justice Thomas participated in cases related to Donald Trump’s efforts to rig and then overturn the 2020 election, while his wife was pushing to do the same. He was the lone dissent in a case that could have denied the January 6th Committee records pertaining to the same plot his wife supported.
“At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation, and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election.” Wyden speaking again to senators in the finance committee,
-
7 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
LOL
This is pure speculation and very partisan. Wyden needs to change bait and spots on this fishing expedition.
what part do you disagree with? Be specific. he's documenting committee findings and Thomas refusal to respond. btw, the most obvious benefactor of his judicial largesse is his wife in regards to Jan 6.
-
From the Senate floor (Wyden has much more knowledge on this than I do): https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-statement-on-clarence-thomass-forgiven-quarter-million-dollar-rv-loan
-
On 5/2/2024 at 10:12 AM, JaCrispy said:
Thomas is a black hero and a patriot …All young men would do well to strive to be like him…👍
Ya mean like accepting free trips and a house from a private individual with interest in the court's decisions?
-
2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Guess who lied about meeting Kim Jon Un?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/kristi-noem-kim-jong-un
The most astonishing, stupid self-disqualifying book ever.
Yeah, these folks don't like experts. They're "elites". Here's another stupid pol that doesn't bother to listen or enlist the help of experts: https://www.outdoorlife.com/opinion/kentucky-bill-legalize-killing-hawks/ Even if the bill passes, they'll still be huge federal fines. Following the rules isn't a strong suit for these people....
-
45 minutes ago, boyst said:
they use other guardian animals
not the same as you killing a hawk. Cool vid of a donkey guarding a chicken:
-
3 hours ago, boyst said:
I have no problem killing animals that pose a threat
you could have a big problem: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state laws make it illegal to kill, capture, possess (actual bird or parts of, including feathers), harass, or harm any bird of prey. Violations are punishable by fines of $5,000 to $250,000 or more, jail sentences, confiscation of possessions, and revocation of licenses.
-
13 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
People actually spend their time making fake pi’s? Tell me it isn’t so
-
1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:
I’m not killing a baby up to birth (at any stage for that matter) that’s how far your people have gone.
Then they have a celebratory cake.
No one has a cake. Not the patient nor the doctor. So how bout IUDs? thumbs up or down? Birth control pills?
-
5 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
/End discussion.
Says an awful lot about what a ***t society we’ve devolved into.
How far do you go? IUD’s work by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. Should they be illegal? In biblical times they did camel birth control by similar means - a pebble in the plumbing. Are those folks in hell?
-
Several times...
What the f “doc”? Is that an East Indian reincarnation thing?
-
1
-
Pedophile / Rapist POTUS: Ashley Biden's Diary & Tara Reade's Allegation
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Never looked into this cuz I never thought it plausible. Thank you. But I don't think Blasey- Ford concocted her story. Kavanaugh is Tucker carlson on SCOTUS- an obnoxious, priviledged, arrogant preppy. Releasing the writings of anyone with mental health issues is way wrong unless they agree to release them (some authors and artists).