Sarah Palin can be with Glen Rice now.....

[Bullneck 18,987]

17 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It's funny how conservative Christians who are so quick to  use scripture to justify their hatred of the gays don't seem to have a problem with scriptural prohibitions against adultery and divorce. 

Just curious: did you closely read all three verses?

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Just curious: did you closely read all three verses?

And many more. I'm not restricting my observation to any specific verses quoted here. 

[Bullneck 18,987]

18 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It's funny how conservative Christians who are so quick to  use scripture to justify their hatred of the gays don't seem to have a problem with scriptural prohibitions against adultery and divorce. 

The only reason I asked is your response was pretty solid/down the middle in response to:

he who lays with a woman divorced from her husband must initiate the shocker.”

I thought maybe you weren't looking too close and missed that bit of humor.

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Bullneck

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

The only reason I asked is your response was pretty solid/down the middle in response to:

he who lays with a woman divorced from her husband must initiate the shocker.”

I thought maybe you weren't looking too close and missed that bit of humor.

 

It just fell flat.

You tried.

The lesson; stop trying.

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

She’ll have rich old man republican dick lined up to bend her over 

Edited September 11, 2019 by tx 3 putt

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

She’ll have rich old man republican dick lined up to bend her over 

Dude party doesn't matter when it comes to sex.  Unless you're saying old democrat men don't care about sex with a fairly hot, older chick.  

Is that what you're saying ?  Quite the admission.

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

You have to factor in the donation to her pac or charity 

[bolverk 29,405]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Dude party doesn't matter when it comes to sex.  Unless you're saying old democrat men don't care about sex with a fairly hot, older chick.  

Is that what you're saying ?  Quite the admission.

Based on the state of her progeny, I'm not sure I want to put it anywhere near the Chernobyl between her thighs. Keep in mind, that's coming from me (MFCDG).

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, bolverk said:

Based on the state of her progeny, I'm not sure I want to put it anywhere near the Chernobyl between her thighs. Keep in mind, that's coming from me (MFCDG).

Procreating wouldnt be my thought process in that equation.

[Incredulity 11,555]

Well she is 55 so most likely pregnancy isn’t possible 

[bolverk 29,405]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Procreating wouldnt be my thought process in that equation.

I was more referring to her generally radioactivity as a human where her twat would lead to lethal exposure for a mere mortal.

[SaucyJack 3,487]

2 hours ago, Bullneck said:

The only reason I asked is your response was pretty solid/down the middle in response to:

he who lays with a woman divorced from her husband must initiate the shocker.”

I thought maybe you weren't looking too close and missed that bit of humor.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I was more referring to her generally radioactivity as a human where her twat would lead to lethal exposure for a mere mortal.

Radioactivity is hawt.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

7 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

 

well played.

[Gatorubet 30,117]

16 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah I used to say that in like.....8th grade

Man had not yet invented speech when you were in 8th grade.  Then, Army Brat exclaimed mouth words in glee while he fapped, and human speech was born.  I've read.

[Gil Bang 25,898]

 

 

[Gil Bang 25,898]

https://twitter.com/janewester/status/1485619995841376258

 

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

 

fify

Edited January 24, 2022 by Biff Tannen
take out the s in https

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

Go Covid Go!

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

So apparently, Elio's in the Upper East Side allowed ole Sarah in even though she is unvaxxed and was probably positive while she was there all because she came in with a long time diner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/dining/sarah-palin-covid-restaurant.html#commentsContainer

Elio's was on my list of places to try as it had been recommended to me.  Looks like I will not be patronizing this place anytime soon.

[Anastasis 23,394]

What a world.

According to New York City rules that took effect on Dec. 27, indoor diners age 12 and up must show proof that they have received both doses of a two-shot regimen like the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or one dose of a one-shot vaccine like Johnson & Johnson’s.

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

34 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

So apparently, Elio's in the Upper East Side allowed ole Sarah in even though she is unvaxxed and was probably positive while she was there all because she came in with a long time diner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/dining/sarah-palin-covid-restaurant.html#commentsContainer

Elio's was on my list of places to try as it had been recommended to me.  Looks like I will not be patronizing this place anytime soon.

no charge for the side of Covid !

[HenryJames 65,890]

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

A lady never combines "the most fun 90 seconds of my life" and "paid some bills" in the same sentence. Somewhere along the road of life, Ms. Palin should've learned that.

[Nivek 16,861]

23 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

A lady never combines "the most fun 90 seconds of my life" and "paid some bills" in the same sentence. Somewhere along the road of life, Ms. Palin should've learned that.

I know, that's @Brisketexan's line.  The first part at least.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Nivek

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

I haven't followed it super-closely, but it looks like NYT really screwed the pooch on the editorial that is the subject of that lawsuit.

Which means that I fear that there is a pretty high likelihood that she wins this.  That is going to be a shit show.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1,258]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I haven't followed it super-closely, but it looks like NYT really screwed the pooch on the editorial that is the subject of that lawsuit.

Which means that I fear that there is a pretty high likelihood that she wins this.  That is going to be a shit show.

She wins and is awarded $1.00 a la Trump's USFL.

[miguelito 11,220]

She should have strenuously objected.  Moron.

[Underdog 28,457]

2x4

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

3 minutes ago, Underdog said:

2x4

What Sarah Palin should take to the face.

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

A lady never combines "the most fun 90 seconds of my life" and "paid some bills" in the same sentence. Somewhere along the road of life, Ms. Palin should've learned that.

glenn rice didn’t leave any money on the night stand !

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I haven't followed it super-closely, but it looks like NYT really screwed the pooch on the editorial that is the subject of that lawsuit.

Which means that I fear that there is a pretty high likelihood that she wins this.  That is going to be a shit show.

could be a Supreme Court right wing long game here …..

https://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-new-york-times-lawsuit-supreme-court-defamation-actual-malice-2022-2?amp

Two right-wing members of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have both criticized the decades-old ruling and said it should be overturned in favor of different standards.

 

 

when is Thomas just going to admit he wants to over turn almost everything ?

Edited February 11, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Jive Turkey 12,568]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

10 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

She still wins. She got her name back in the news again. She’ll find a way to profit from it. 

[Bullneck 18,987]

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

One more thing. Fuck you, Sarah.

[Brisketexan 104,629]

I know, that's [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention]'s line.  The first part at least.

90 seconds? You think she’s interested in me TWICE?

[atomheartbevo 89,451]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

90 seconds? You think she’s interested in me TWICE?

[Biff Tannen 45,499]

32 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

One more thing. Fuck you, Sarah.

This barely moved the needle then and it would be celebrated by the right now.  What the fuck have we become?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,093]

I just saw the news.  Made my day.  LOL, Fuck you Sarah, you unwashed heathen.  Get the fuck out of NYC ASAP.  You are definitely not wanted here.

[tx 3 putt 76,405]

Just she can still carry on with her appeals ?

she has a radical right Supreme Court foaming at the mouth 

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

7 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Never been happier to be wrong.

Federal judges have been pretty "strict" (or loose depending on your perspective) in dismissing defamation cases concerning public figures, so one kind of tends to think if it makes it to trial, it's got a pretty good chance of winning.

From what I know, Rakoff is a solid judge, so he's probably not fucking this up.

[TwiceHorn 31,287]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:39 AM, tx 3 putt said:

could be a Supreme Court right wing long game here …..

https://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palin-new-york-times-lawsuit-supreme-court-defamation-actual-malice-2022-2?amp

Two right-wing members of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have both criticized the decades-old ruling and said it should be overturned in favor of different standards.

 

 

when is Thomas just going to admit he wants to over turn almost everything ?

To be fair, Gorsuch's criticism of NYT v. Sullivan and the public figure doctrine is far more nuanced than Thomas'.   Thomas thinks it's just flat wrong, that the First Amendment imposes no barrier to defamation liability.  Mostly because he wanted to sue Anita Hill and all of the papers and outlets that repeated her statements.

On the other hand, Gorsuch is concerned that Sullivan applies too easily to "non-journalistic" entities, particularly in light of the proliferation of half-assed journalists on the internet.

[lemonlime 5,503]

Not that it matters, because the goal was always to get this to SCOTUS.

 

[RPM 26,230]

 

[Restless Native 315]

Hey law dogs, I was thinking that if Palin would've won, and Times v. Sullivan got squashed, that would have unintended long-term consequences for fucksticks like Hannity and Tucker. Seems like every time they would have one of their little non-truth implications, that they could then be sued. Sorry for any butchering of legal terms; whatever a layperson is, I'm a little below that.

[SydneyCarton 47,885]

9 minutes ago, Restless Native said:

Hey law dogs, I was thinking that if Palin would've won, and Times v. Sullivan got squashed, that would have unintended long-term consequences for fucksticks like Hannity and Tucker. Seems like every time they would have one of their little non-truth implications, that they could then be sued. Sorry for any butchering of legal terms; whatever a layperson is, I'm a little below that.

They've already won those lawsuits, and Fox as repeatedly used the defense in court that no "reasonable" person would/should believe what they say.