Jump to content

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

Aqua Buddha

By Aqua Buddha
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bullneck

Bullneck 19454

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19454

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30231

Posted
Posted
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).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaucyJack

SaucyJack 3517

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19279

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23699

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78470

Posted
Posted
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 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Nivek

Nivek 17330

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by Nivek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRealRonWeaver?

TheRealRonWeaver? 1274

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78470

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Restless Native

Restless Native 315

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49325

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...