Donald Trump 2020

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

And we pray that you never change your Avatar. There I said it.

[burntorangebongos 10752]

I always forget her name, she is some pornstar with a very sweet smile....and big bongos.

[henrygandorf 29197]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

When I was looking for an avatar, I googled burnt orange bongos and this hot chick popped up

[Jive Turkey 12648]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

we prefer the term "sex worker".

[Biff Tannen 45750]

Is Lobo day drinking?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps but more overt would be him blaming Lincoln for the Civil War and destroying the “true American way of life.”

So the Overton Window has now shifted to where we are now questioning whether or not ending slavery was a good idea. 

[henrygandorf 29197]

Just now, MaybeACoordinator said:

So the Overton Window has now shifted to where we are now questioning whether or not ending slavery was a good idea. 

i finally watched it and he definitely has something in his reptile brain that made him say that.  there's always a reason.  i have no idea what it is, and i'm sure it's ridiculous, but it's something.

at some point, while 19/20 people in a room said lincoln was great, the 20th said, "well, you know, there's a theory out there that says...."  and however that sentence ends is what he was referencing.

[Sawbonz 27605]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I represented a woman who had made such a purchase. The husband complained about the purchase. I made him explain to the jury why he didn’t like the purchase of boobs. For about an hour I talked about boobs and compelled opposing counsel and a judge, both women, to talk about boobs to 12 jurors. Bikini pics were put in evidence and published to the jury on a big tv. In the end everyone had to agree with me that the boobs were a desired addition to the community estate. The judge was amused. So, yeah, complicated sometimes, but it was resolved that boobs were things people liked, and getting more is desirable. 

Would it be safe to assume that another man or men also got the opportunity to appreciate the purchase and their appreciation led her and him to seek counsel?

[WhatTheBuck 28808]

6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

I always forget her name, she is some pornstar with a very sweet smile....and big bongos.

She's not a porn star. She was just an Internet model. Her name was Christina Lucci but she went by Christina Model. She started out when she was about 16 years old. Her breasts were a whole lot bigger before she lost her baby fat. Your avatar has to be after she turned 18. But she was always doing that same cheesy dance. Cheesy but effective enough. 

She gradually showed more and more until nothing was left to the imagination. But she was incredibly boring and dumb as a box of rocks. She was either an incredibly bad actor or never experienced an actual orgasm. Last I heard she was married with a kid and had left the business.  

[StassneyHorn 6643]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I represented a woman who had made such a purchase. The husband complained about the purchase. I made him explain to the jury why he didn’t like the purchase of boobs. For about an hour I talked about boobs and compelled opposing counsel and a judge, both women, to talk about boobs to 12 jurors. Bikini pics were put in evidence and published to the jury on a big tv. In the end everyone had to agree with me that the boobs were a desired addition to the community estate. The judge was amused. So, yeah, complicated sometimes, but it was resolved that boobs were things people liked, and getting more is desirable. 

I’m gonna guess the man paid for some boobs, she got attention from another man, and then that other man got the rewards of new boobs paid for by original man.

[softlynow 1840]

29 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Why was he against her new boobs? Was he afraid she was going to press them against other ardent admirers?

When I was looking for an avatar, I googled burnt orange bongos and this hot chick popped up, I shit you not. How in hell was I not going to choose her for a football message board? 

He wanted to have her purchase considered a fraud against their marital estate. He disclaimed approval of the purchase. I could have won on that issue with a simple, "c'mon folks" in closing argument, but you can't pass up that kind of opportunity. I did keep the hand bra pic (his hands) in the chamber. I only showed it to him on the stand, but didn't admit it into evidence. I'm sure the judge would've thought that a bridge too far, what with her nipples peeking through the gaps in his fingers.

[softlynow 1840]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Would it be safe to assume that another man or men also got the opportunity to appreciate the purchase and their appreciation led her and him to seek counsel?

I don't have to assume. Her name has come up in a couple of my criminal cases as witnesses. She's ... popular. 

[Underdog 28795]

2 hours ago, Horn Dogg said:

Fuck it, let’s just give Trump $1 billion to close his twitter account and go away for good.  At this point that would be the best investment the US could make.

I believe he got a healthy cut from the PPP stimulus bill.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

He wanted to have her purchase considered a fraud against their marital estate. He disclaimed approval of the purchase. I could have won on that issue with a simple, "c'mon folks" in closing argument, but you can't pass up that kind of opportunity. I did keep the hand bra pic (his hands) in the chamber. I only showed it to him on the stand, but didn't admit it into evidence. I'm sure the judge would've thought that a bridge too far, what with her nipples peeking through the gaps in his fingers.

If it's circumnavigation evidence, it's not admissible anyway right?

[jimmyjazz 46245]

42 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Why was he against her new boobs? Was he afraid she was going to press them against other ardent admirers?

Edited June 12, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, Brandywine said:

I would really like to know from our Trump supporters what Trump has specifically done that is so great for the black community, outside of trying to make everyone believe he’s done so much for the black community. 

He was able to snag a photo op with Kanye

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-boltons-trump-white-house-book-is-due-out-soon-but-his-lawyer-just-threw-him-under-the-bus-2?via=newsletter&source=BI-end-week-digest

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The reason for this is simple. To an intelligence professional, there is little distinction between giving classified information to the general public and giving it to your priest. Once classified information is known by someone the government cannot control, it is in the wild and the assumption must be that it will be further disseminated. A security breach is a security breach. A television audience and a private lawyer are equally unauthorized to receive the information. It is why former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified informationsimply because he gave it to his biographer. 

“But what if Bolton’s lawyer has a clearance?” This was one of the key questions raised when it was revealed that former FBI Director James Comey had given a copy of a memo to a lawyer who apparently held a clearance at the time. The simple answer is, it doesn’t matter. In order to be approved to see any specific piece of classified information, a person must both have the appropriate level of security clearance and the “need to know” that particular piece of information. “Need to know” is roughly described as the need to know that information to perform the duties for which you were given the clearance. It is why people on the CIA Indonesia Desk cannot go read classified briefings on Poland; they do not have the requisite “need to know.” So even if Bolton’s lawyer had a clearance to handle classified information in some other context (as some private national security lawyers do), he would only be able to handle Bolton’s manuscript if he had been specifically approved for that specificinformation. 

I chose the word “handle” here instead of “read” because it is currently unclear if Bolton’s lawyer actually read the manuscript or simply forwarded it along to the NSC unopened, but this is a distinction without a difference. The mere act of giving the manuscript to his lawyer was sufficient to violate Bolton’s NDA, regardless of whether or not his lawyer read it. Moreover, as far as criminal prohibitions go, the law does not always even require that the information be given to anyone, let alone given to anyone who read it. As one CIA contractor learned, merely taking classified information home and not sharing it is still a violation of the law. If you can be prosecuted for keeping a classified document in your garage, you can be prosecuted for giving it to your lawyer.

Which brings us to the key argument: Bolton says the manuscript contained no classified information, while the White House says it did. This might be enough to allow Bolton to defeat an Espionage Act charge, but that’s not a sure thing. Some aspects of the Espionage Act do not require active knowledge that information is classified, but instead include a lesser standard which is best summed up as “they should have known better.” And it is extremely difficult to defeat an Espionage Act charge based on the argument that “the information should not have been classified.” It has been done, but it is exceedingly rare and requires almost a perfect storm of mistakes on the government’s part. The reason is that courts almost religiously defer to the executive branch on classification matters, so a judge will almost always overrule a defendant who challenges the classification of information, primarily because the actual scope of what can be classified is much broader than most people realize. Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the Espionage Act does not actually mention “classified information,” but only “national defense information,” which does not always have to be classified. 

Even if the government elects not to pursue criminal charges against Bolton, though, he is not out of the woods yet. In fact, the violation of his NDA is not even a question of criminal law; it is a question of contract law. The most that the government can do in civil court to someone who violates an NDA is sue him for breach of contract, a power that it employs freely. After winning such a lawsuit, the government is entitled to all of the author’s proceeds from the publication, past and future. The author is no worse off than he was before the publication, but he is no better off either, and all his work will net him zero return.

Most importantly, even if Bolton was correct and his manuscript contained no classified information, that was simply not his call to make. Put simply, someone who writes a piece of information that he does not believe to be classified may not always be in a position to know for a fact whether or not it is classified. He may have a good faith belief that he is simply relating an unclassified fact, but he may not realize that by writing it he is inadvertently revealing classified information about another government project he knows nothing about. This is obviously not always—or even often—the case, but there is no practical way for any particular author to know whether it is or is not the case in his particular situation. Complicating the matter further is the fact that the agency may decide to retroactively classify information the author believed to be unclassified, as occurred with Comey and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Evidence that the government retroactively classified previously unclassified information might be enough to defeat a criminal charge, but it would not help an author in civil litigation.

Because of this, the Supreme Court has held that the government can impose an NDA which requires everyone with a security clearance to first obtain the agency’s permission through prepublication review before publishing anything related to his work. As a result, someone can be successfully sued by the government for publishing completely unclassified information, simply because they did not use the process first to ensure that it was unclassified. There have been attempts to overturn this jurisprudence in light of the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which the government actually conducts prepublication review, but so far it remains the law of the land. The system may be broken, but it remains the system. The only current way around this is to sue the government first under the First Amendment, which Bolton has so far chosen not to do.

It remains an open question whether Bolton could be forced to turn over proceeds of the book if he doesn’t actually publish it until the prepublication review is complete, amd if his only violation of his NDA was giving the manuscript to his lawyer (and probably his publisher), but given that his lawyer has stated that he will go through with the publication regardless, this question will probably not be answered, at least not in this case.

However, Bolton should not be complacent in this matter. He may have an “in for a penny, in for a pound” mindset, especially if he reads this op-ed, but he should be fully aware of the legal jeopardy that his lawyer’s op-ed has placed him in. His lawyer should also be concerned, since the last time a lawyer advised his client not to worry about prepublication review, his client sued him for malpractice after losing all the proceeds of his hard work.

For Bolton’s sake, I hope the op-ed was worth it.

 

If Bolton goes to jail to spill the beans, I can live with it. 

[softlynow 1840]

4 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

I’m gonna guess the man paid for some boobs, she got attention from another man, and then that other man got the rewards of new boobs paid for by original man.

She was accused of being a few things, but unfaithful wasn't one of them. Could be that was a two-way street, and neither wanted to go there. But my experience is every last bit of dirty laundry comes out in these kinds of divorces. Every. Fucking. Bit. And it's more annoying to everyone involved than helpful to their case.

In divorces these days, adultery is kind of assumed, and usually doesn't mean a damn thing in the property division or maintenance award. Bottom line on this case, probably, but no one mentioned it.

[StassneyHorn 6643]

“You don’t buy new tits for your wife unless you want to be an old husband of hers.”

-Galileo

Edited June 12, 2020 by StassneyHorn

[softlynow 1840]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If it's circumnavigation evidence, it's not admissible anyway right?

Are you referring to the Magellan exception?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

24 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

So the Overton Window has now shifted to where we are now questioning whether or not ending slavery was a good idea. 

No

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Bolton is an ineffectual cunt.  As is Anonymous with their "hacked goods on Trump"  I've listened to Bolton clamor on and on at AEI dinner after AEI dinner with no reporters, no outside parties, nothing.  Just a few drunken people in a small room.  And he's a zero-effect cunt.  He's got tons on Trump and he'll never do a fucking thing with it because he thinks he'll be important forever.  We can smell each other from across the room. Nothing's happening with these guys.  No whistleblower from Ukraine call.  Nothing.  None of it comes to fruition.  They're dangling this shit in front of America because they want you to stay home and think Biden will beat Trump based on suspicions of all this shit.  Nothing is coming out in the next six months.  Not a damn thing.  Just the shit he spews out at press conferences (and I guess that's not nothing).  They want you to drop your guard and think the election is done for already, that all these bombshells will be out shortly.  They ain't.  Don't fall for it.  Bolton fucking hates Trump, but he's rather fuck Trump in the ass than let Joe Biden win.  You gotta start putting the puzzle together ladies.  Oh, sorry...you cunts. 

Looks like our man lobo started happy hour extra early today.  Good for you bro, I for one approve.

[Beau Vine 54467]

8 hours ago, Hiphopopotamos said:

Is anyone surprised to hear that he loves short-form?

 

I got a sneak-peek at the new platform.

DOMINATE!

LAW & ORDER!

FLAG!

WALL!!!

BATTLESPACE!

KAG!

fify

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Are you referring to the Magellan exception?

If the judge gives you latitude, then might as well use it.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We need to come up with a new term because his racist base’s interpretation of that message is different from everyone it offended.  

That’s where the red meat metaphor is appropriate.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

28 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Would it be safe to assume that another man or men also got the opportunity to appreciate the purchase and their appreciation led her and him to seek counsel?

This, it made me laugh with full gusto.  Thank you, kind sir.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

22 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

“You don’t buy new tits for your wife unless you want to be an old husband of hers.”

-Galileo

My ex got some duPont titties not long before our divorce.  Considering we were broke af when we divorced and half of 0 is still 0 I consider it money well spent.

And she’s still broke af, but I have done alright since our parting of the ways.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Fudge Nuggets

[Bama Chick 28596]

Great timing on the upcoming rally in Tulsa.

[Sawbonz 27605]

No way this asshole doesn’t get covid but with our luck he’ll just get the sniffles

[WhatTheBuck 28808]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No way this asshole doesn’t get covid but with our luck he’ll just get the sniffles

How will we tell?

[Sawbonz 27605]

He wouldn’t be able to shut up about it being no worse than the flu all a hoax blah blah blah

[RomaVicta 30032]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

ROMA-----------Bunker Bitch is literally the prevailing term for him all across the left this week in our nation.  #BunkerBitch.  It's fucking everywhere right now.  But yeah, mine were too sexist.  

Got it, chief.  My simple point was to belittle him using the very sexist terminology he would use.  I get your point that there is a serious downside to doing that.  Guy raised by 4 women and in a house right with 3 women, message received.  I was over the line.  But the current trending hashtag is "bunker BITCH"    And that one's okay, right?  Got it.  

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bunkerbitch

All those are just sexist men posting that shit, right?  Oh wait, "Bitch" is just a female dog, right...nothing about the female anatomy.  This massive, hundreds of thousands strong trend prove my point.  Call him out by shit he would use to call out other people, and he caves.  You think Bunker Bitch stuck as a term because the alliteration?  

You're picking and choosing pieces of the picture to support your desire to be persecuted.

I've used bunker bitch. I've called him a cunt. I don't care about the people around you when you were being raised. I seldom refer to well known women by female body parts because it feels like misogynism which is pretty ingrained in this white man's world. I'm a white man. I've always gotten on well with women. I doubt any of them find me patronizing. There, now you have some of my irrelevant history.

What is relevant is an odd determination to employ sexist language like it is a vital part of a crusade. No, bitch is not a body part. You really got us all on that one. But, if I may, I'll direct your attention to the spirit of the argument: needlessly sexist insults which clearly cast shade on all women within earshot do indeed offend women and, frankly, men like me. I don't belittle people and I won't be belittled myself.

I don't argue that women are delicate flowers in need of my protection. But I won't allow myself to even seem to be in agreement with the braying of somebody determined to cast the shade I mention above. If you can't make a powerful point or stick pins in an irritable opponent without resorting to bad language, I would argue that is more an indication of your own weaknesses than an oppressive politically correct world closing in all around you. 

If you and I were in a  serious debate and you were reduced to calling me a cowardly cunt or worthless dickhead, I pretty much figure you're capitulating.

I'll not argue the point further. It's too self-evident to anyone paying attention to people around them.

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Great timing on the upcoming rally in Tulsa.

 

That's undoubtedly the most impressive peak in Oklahoma. Until tomorrow.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-boltons-trump-white-house-book-is-due-out-soon-but-his-lawyer-just-threw-him-under-the-bus-2?via=newsletter&source=BI-end-week-digest

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The reason for this is simple. To an intelligence professional, there is little distinction between giving classified information to the general public and giving it to your priest. Once classified information is known by someone the government cannot control, it is in the wild and the assumption must be that it will be further disseminated. A security breach is a security breach. A television audience and a private lawyer are equally unauthorized to receive the information. It is why former CIA Director David Petraeus pleaded guilty to mishandling classified informationsimply because he gave it to his biographer. 

“But what if Bolton’s lawyer has a clearance?” This was one of the key questions raised when it was revealed that former FBI Director James Comey had given a copy of a memo to a lawyer who apparently held a clearance at the time. The simple answer is, it doesn’t matter. In order to be approved to see any specific piece of classified information, a person must both have the appropriate level of security clearance and the “need to know” that particular piece of information. “Need to know” is roughly described as the need to know that information to perform the duties for which you were given the clearance. It is why people on the CIA Indonesia Desk cannot go read classified briefings on Poland; they do not have the requisite “need to know.” So even if Bolton’s lawyer had a clearance to handle classified information in some other context (as some private national security lawyers do), he would only be able to handle Bolton’s manuscript if he had been specifically approved for that specificinformation. 

I chose the word “handle” here instead of “read” because it is currently unclear if Bolton’s lawyer actually read the manuscript or simply forwarded it along to the NSC unopened, but this is a distinction without a difference. The mere act of giving the manuscript to his lawyer was sufficient to violate Bolton’s NDA, regardless of whether or not his lawyer read it. Moreover, as far as criminal prohibitions go, the law does not always even require that the information be given to anyone, let alone given to anyone who read it. As one CIA contractor learned, merely taking classified information home and not sharing it is still a violation of the law. If you can be prosecuted for keeping a classified document in your garage, you can be prosecuted for giving it to your lawyer.

Which brings us to the key argument: Bolton says the manuscript contained no classified information, while the White House says it did. This might be enough to allow Bolton to defeat an Espionage Act charge, but that’s not a sure thing. Some aspects of the Espionage Act do not require active knowledge that information is classified, but instead include a lesser standard which is best summed up as “they should have known better.” And it is extremely difficult to defeat an Espionage Act charge based on the argument that “the information should not have been classified.” It has been done, but it is exceedingly rare and requires almost a perfect storm of mistakes on the government’s part. The reason is that courts almost religiously defer to the executive branch on classification matters, so a judge will almost always overrule a defendant who challenges the classification of information, primarily because the actual scope of what can be classified is much broader than most people realize. Additionally, it should not be overlooked that the Espionage Act does not actually mention “classified information,” but only “national defense information,” which does not always have to be classified. 

Even if the government elects not to pursue criminal charges against Bolton, though, he is not out of the woods yet. In fact, the violation of his NDA is not even a question of criminal law; it is a question of contract law. The most that the government can do in civil court to someone who violates an NDA is sue him for breach of contract, a power that it employs freely. After winning such a lawsuit, the government is entitled to all of the author’s proceeds from the publication, past and future. The author is no worse off than he was before the publication, but he is no better off either, and all his work will net him zero return.

Most importantly, even if Bolton was correct and his manuscript contained no classified information, that was simply not his call to make. Put simply, someone who writes a piece of information that he does not believe to be classified may not always be in a position to know for a fact whether or not it is classified. He may have a good faith belief that he is simply relating an unclassified fact, but he may not realize that by writing it he is inadvertently revealing classified information about another government project he knows nothing about. This is obviously not always—or even often—the case, but there is no practical way for any particular author to know whether it is or is not the case in his particular situation. Complicating the matter further is the fact that the agency may decide to retroactively classify information the author believed to be unclassified, as occurred with Comey and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Evidence that the government retroactively classified previously unclassified information might be enough to defeat a criminal charge, but it would not help an author in civil litigation.

Because of this, the Supreme Court has held that the government can impose an NDA which requires everyone with a security clearance to first obtain the agency’s permission through prepublication review before publishing anything related to his work. As a result, someone can be successfully sued by the government for publishing completely unclassified information, simply because they did not use the process first to ensure that it was unclassified. There have been attempts to overturn this jurisprudence in light of the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which the government actually conducts prepublication review, but so far it remains the law of the land. The system may be broken, but it remains the system. The only current way around this is to sue the government first under the First Amendment, which Bolton has so far chosen not to do.

It remains an open question whether Bolton could be forced to turn over proceeds of the book if he doesn’t actually publish it until the prepublication review is complete, amd if his only violation of his NDA was giving the manuscript to his lawyer (and probably his publisher), but given that his lawyer has stated that he will go through with the publication regardless, this question will probably not be answered, at least not in this case.

However, Bolton should not be complacent in this matter. He may have an “in for a penny, in for a pound” mindset, especially if he reads this op-ed, but he should be fully aware of the legal jeopardy that his lawyer’s op-ed has placed him in. His lawyer should also be concerned, since the last time a lawyer advised his client not to worry about prepublication review, his client sued him for malpractice after losing all the proceeds of his hard work.

For Bolton’s sake, I hope the op-ed was worth it.

 

I cannot believe how bad that lawyer fucked up. Wow. 

[Guest Lobo]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You're picking and choosing pieces of the picture to support your desire to be persecuted.

I've used bunker bitch. I've called him a cunt. I don't care about the people around you when you were being raised. I seldom refer to well known women by female body parts because it feels like misogynism which is pretty ingrained in this white man's world. I'm a white man. I've always gotten on well with women. I doubt any of them find me patronizing. There, now you have some of my irrelevant history.

What is relevant is an odd determination to employ sexist language like it is a vital part of a crusade. No, bitch is not a body part. You really got us all on that one. But, if I may, I'll direct your attention to the spirit of the argument: needlessly sexist insults which clearly cast shade on all women within earshot do indeed offend women and, frankly, men like me. I don't belittle people and I won't be belittled myself.

I don't argue that women are delicate flowers in need of my protection. But I won't allow myself to even seem to be in agreement with the braying of somebody determined to cast the shade I mention above. If you can't make a powerful point or stick pins in an irritable opponent without resorting to bad language, I would argue that is more an indication of your own weaknesses than an oppressive politically correct world closing in all around you. 

If you and I were in a  serious debate and you were reduced to calling me a cowardly cunt or worthless dickhead, I pretty much figure you're capitulating.

I'll not argue the point further. It's too self-evident to anyone paying attention to people around them.

You put more into the analysis and then he’s put into every other one of his comments about females.  We’re all of our fucking minds I don’t care.  I’m gonna jump off this thread because we got adult shit to do to actually defeat him 

[Biff Tannen 45750]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

Are you referring to the Magellan exception?

Hey hey hey, Copernicus, why don’t you navigate yourself to the back of the line with your feet and stand there with your shirt?

[RomaVicta 30032]

33 minutes ago, Lobo said:

You put more into the analysis and then he’s put into every other one of his comments about females.  We’re all of our fucking minds I don’t care.  I’m gonna jump off this thread because we got adult shit to do to actually defeat him 

I congratulate you on being an adult. Fine job.

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

[bolverk 29735]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Wait, you didn't know that?

Partly, yes. Because MoscowMitch preceded it. BunkerBitch and MoscowMitch. Come up with one for Barr like WillieWitch or some such and you can claim the trifecta.

Too easy: BarrDitch

[cactusflinthead 27606]

Deeeelishus 

Make your opponent spend money where they shouldn't have to. 

 

[tx 3 putt 77550]

2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

I always forget her name, she is some pornstar with a very sweet smile....and big bongos.

Christina Model AKA Deb Gooden, Christina Lucci

[bolverk 29735]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

ROMA-----------Bunker Bitch is literally the prevailing term for him all across the left this week in our nation.  #BunkerBitch.  It's fucking everywhere right now.  But yeah, mine were too sexist.  

Got it, chief.  My simple point was to belittle him using the very sexist terminology he would use.  I get your point that there is a serious downside to doing that.  Guy raised by 4 women and in a house right with 3 women, message received.  I was over the line.  But the current trending hashtag is "bunker BITCH"    And that one's okay, right?  Got it.  

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bunkerbitch

All those are just sexist men posting that shit, right?  Oh wait, "Bitch" is just a female dog, right...nothing about the female anatomy.  This massive, hundreds of thousands strong trend prove my point.  Call him out by shit he would use to call out other people, and he caves.  You think Bunker Bitch stuck as a term because the alliteration?  

I'm probably guilty of using the same type of language. But if you truly believe that the language we use on this board has outsized influence and can, not only, alter the perceptions of Trump in the wider world (as expressed above) but also those of our beloved university (as stated elsewhere on this board in reference to race/ethnicity), then maybe we should use our vivid imaginations and mastery of language to produce more florid insults for cutting Trump to the bone.

Having just said that, I immediately see the flaw in my logic and admit that neither the motherfucking mushbrained cunt nor his drooling regarded fans would get goddamned point. En bref, I concede the logic in your analysis but also request your attention to the concerns of our fairer sex who also frequent this shitty cesspool. 

[Guest Lobo]

Good lord, you pack of fucking self-righteous cunts.  Just forget what I wrote, request its deletion, miss the point entirely, and let the President have free range over language.   Of course the point of the story sailed clear over your heads.  I guess my pithiness thusfar hasn't proven effective.  

Every once in awhile I wonder how my old party managed to beat the piss out of y'all.  Now I know.  

It's called "BUNKER BITCH"  How the fuck is that a million+ twitter trend, but suddenly you get religion with a passing, comedic post by guy on here.  How the fuck are y'all that naively stupid?  Your stupid fucking team invented the whole trend, but now one guy on a small college thread is the asshole?  (I mean, I am, but not because of this).  It's impossible you're this naive with regard to political trends.  Your fucking party came up with "BITCH" as a hashtag.  It was you fucking cuntstains.  How are you not getting this, you shit for brain vulvas?  Keep up the "We must remain above the fray because we're so special and mighty."  See where that gets you every two years you Beto shitmonkeys.  

Edited June 13, 2020 by Lobo

[Serak The Preparer 3434]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Good lord, you pack of fucking self-righteous cunts.  Just forget what I wrote, request its deletion, miss the point entirely, and let the President have free range over language.   Of course the point of the story sailed clear over your heads.  I guess my pithiness thusfar hasn't proven effective.  

Every once in awhile I wonder how my old party managed to beat the piss out of y'all.  Now I know.  

It's called "BUNKER BITCH"  How the fuck is that a million+ twitter trend, but suddenly you get religion with a passing, comedic post by guy on here.  How the fuck are y'all that naively stupid?  Your stupid fucking team invented the whole trend, but now one guy on a small college thread is the asshole?  (I mean, I am, but not because of this).  It's impossible you're this naive with regard to political trends.  Your fucking party came up with "BITCH" as a hashtag.  It was you fucking cuntstains.  How are you not getting this, you shit for brain vulvas?  Keep up the "We must remain above the fray because we're so special and mighty."  See where that gets you every two years you Beto shitmonkeys.  

It's amazing how much wordier and more effort this takes than "You know what, you're right. I didn't think about that, and will try to keep that in mind in the future."

[cactusflinthead 27606]

Well now I hope you feel better after that rant.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Serak The Preparer said:

It's amazing how much wordier and more effort this takes than "You know what, you're right. I didn't think about that, and will try to keep that in mind in the future."

It's amazing how ineffectual you and your party will prove to be against the largest evil our nation has faced since Imperial Japan.  Your party starts a trend called "Bunker Bitch" and passes out from high-fiving one another.  I chime in a with a couple of other similar insults and I ruined everything for gender relations.  None of you are helping the cause, you're whiney bitches.  Fuck off.  Let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.  

[cactusflinthead 27606]

 

 

[Serak The Preparer 3434]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

It's amazing how ineffectual you and your party will prove to be against the largest evil our nation has faced since Imperial Japan.  Your party starts a trend called "Bunker Bitch" and passes out from high-fiving one another.  I chime in a with a couple of other similar insults and I ruined everything for gender relations.  None of you are helping the cause, you're whiney bitches.  Fuck off.  Let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.  

Jesus you get self-important sometimes. You didn't ruin shit. You just took things farther than made some people comfortable. They told you. And then you throw this shit-fit and complain that you are the only one acting like an adult. My 9 year old is doing the same thing right now.

[cactusflinthead 27606]

Just now, Lobo said:

It's amazing how ineffectual you and your party will prove to be against the largest evil our nation has faced since Imperial Japan.  Your party starts a trend called "Bunker Bitch" and passes out from high-fiving one another.  I chime in a with a couple of other similar insults and I ruined everything for gender relations.  None of you are helping the cause, you're whiney bitches.  Fuck off.  Let the rest of us do the heavy lifting.  

Save some of that vitriol. It's a long way to November. 

For the record I don't give a shit if you call someone a cunt. It's a fighting word, so expect return fire.

[Guest Lobo]

Fair point.  It does drive my desire to create a new thread where those of us who are able to can have a place to shit on both parties.  A man can dream.  

It was my cry for help.  That the Democrat and Republican Party leaderships burn for all eternity.  I just went about it entirely wrong.  At least I had some pithy jokes way back up top to be remembered by.