Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, GenXer said:

How are things in Gardiner, the town built to service yellowstone tourism, making out?

 

IMG_2934.thumb.jpeg.f10eb3e89c5176a265735e9df2faafbb.jpeg


IMG_2935.thumb.jpeg.95b6a206b60ff95bba0257a891c7f05b.jpeg

IMG_2936.thumb.jpeg.80d6994908d97c9839815a3637341642.jpeg

 

And for which candidate did the people of park county montana vote?

 

IMG_2937.thumb.jpeg.8cca3526139e4750cd1416112c3d6be8.jpeg


Eat shit, gardiner.

Spent three summers of my 20s as a fishing guide out of a Yellowstone-area fly shop.  All those towns stand to be hit hard.  Their economy is built on the disposable income of outdoorsmen.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

ojo, i would just encourage you to consider that roberts is almost wholly responsible for the fact that elon musk can show up in wisconsin and just pay voters a million dollars to vote.

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

You should read this: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html

Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It should be easy for you to cite the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that left it to Congress to enforce, then. 

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I've read it. It doesn't say anything that disproves my point.

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

Edited by Ojo Rojo
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

Almost as hilarious as claiming John Roberts isn't a political actor  when the reality is that he's overseen the most activist Supreme Court since the Lochner era. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
30 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

Mr. Rojo, sir, I am the Wallet Inspector. You must hand over your wallet to me for inspection.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

I’m not going to argue with you but I disagree it was the law. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

Which foreign war would you like us to end?  The one in Afghanistan?  Wait, someone already did that.  Your boy is going to start a war, not end one.

Cutting costs?  They're gonna raise the debt ceiling after they're done laying off federal employees and replacing them with loyalists, you dipshit.

Killing woke BS?  You elected a full-blown fascist because you were pissed off that some swimmer who was born with a dick beat some other swimmer who was born without a dick.  What state did that even happen in?  That's right, you don't know.  But you know you won't stand for it, because Tucker and Jesse and White Baby Jesus told you not to.

Just stop having thoughts at all.  You're a fucking idiot.  You and your idiotic ilk have killed this country while jerking off to Lee Greenwood records and your F-16 posters.  Also, go fuck yourself.

maxresdefault.jpg

But....amp up the hate and contempt.  No, MORE than that.  MORE.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

You got the promise of a tax cut.

You also got:

Promise of lower grocery prices;

Promise of an end to the war in Ukraine in 24 hours;

Promise of free IVF.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

This one is sooooo good.

I’m convinced this cat is grifting the christians.

jesusdoll. Yeah. A doll. Of jesus. That talks. 

It would be great if the guy, you know, that imposes tariffs could explain how tariffs work as well as the jesusdoll guy.
 

IMG_2938.thumb.jpeg.39d10ff403ae4f3a7c1b506f207f469b.jpeg


IMG_2939.thumb.jpeg.c38801346bdd9e901d675aacbef28bd9.jpeg

 

IMG_2940.thumb.jpeg.6c8b219c65c6358c32f2860ee55513d0.jpeg

 

IMG_2941.thumb.jpeg.3885439b3ebe489209d06d3b21d96dea.jpeg

 

IMG_2942.thumb.jpeg.2897b16d2b9beb56794e9b984995940a.jpeg

 

jesusdoll you ask? I couldn’t resist.

 

IMG_2943.thumb.jpeg.a5d1f87da606c5581a42b34f7c9818d9.jpeg

 

Oh the trials and tribulations god has bestowed upon him…

 

IMG_2944.thumb.jpeg.526d29061a07ca7957e1462cf68c2018.jpeg

IMG_2945.thumb.jpeg.5a232e65982faf4f7c8479a3421c7e13.jpeg

god hath gifted you with another trial: a beastly tangerine one. One that you can add to your tribulations list.

“When a malignant narcissist imposed a godless tax upon our righteous talking plushie, we opened a gofundme”
 

Went to his LinkedIn.  Of course he lives in Nashville.  I'd be stunned if it wasn't Franklin specifically. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

You're an idiot. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

Dude, every Supreme Court Justice ever was a political actor.  Many of the cases before the Court have no real basis for choice or decision in any part of the Constitution or statutes of the country.  They boil down to policy choices that are influenced by many things, including politics.

Like a lot of problems facing Congress are really beyond Congress' capabilities or institutional competence (hence the administrative "state"), more modern justices are trained only in the law, and have never held office outside of the judiciary, so they are, at bottom, really unfamiliar with policy choices.  So, experience, personal and governmental, bears little on their decisions, it boils down to biases and politics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

This is the leopards thread, not the Roberts is just misunderstood and is really really groovy awesome thread.  Take your shit to the SCOTUS thread and leave this one alone.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

Which foreign war would you like us to end?  The one in Afghanistan?  Wait, someone already did that.  Your boy is going to start a war, not end one.

The foreign war we've been fighting against the Ukraine.

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

Which foreign war would you like us to end? 

Didn’t you get the memo? War is peace. So we need to end foreign peace, thereby ending foreign wars.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Goredho said:

Spent three summers of my 20s as a fishing guide out of a Yellowstone-area fly shop.  All those towns stand to be hit hard.  Their economy is built on the disposable income of outdoorsmen.

Lived 6 years on Cody, Wy. Yeah there aren’t enough locals to support commerce.  And there were SO many international tourists because YNP is a global destination.  There will still be hunting and fishing tourism, but I can’t believe that will be able to make up the loss of ynp traffic. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Does anyone seriously believe Trump would trust Vance (or anyone not named Trump) to step down if they’re elected president and allow him to take their place?

I think it would have to be Eric. No way an actual politician would give up the power, and Junior would love to fuck his dad over.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Usually a 9/11 truther dictating the NSC’s staffing over the actual National Security Advisor would be a bigger deal.  We are doing good everyone. 
 

To be clear on those staffers: Fuck ‘em. You have to fight for that detail as a career staffer or beg for it as a political.  You thought you could get in the cage and your face got ate by a 9/11 truther. 
 

image.thumb.png.7a7b7ce420c2983f73802930c14bb1ff.png

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
On 4/2/2025 at 12:58 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

willful ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.

yes, and my naive assumption that in order to get to that role, you need to be the best of the best. worldview shattered. lol

There are no more eloquent words to describe American meritocracy than President Donald J Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

Usually a 9/11 truther dictating the NSC’s staffing over the actual National Security Advisor would be a bigger deal.  We are doing good everyone. 
 

To be clear on those staffers: Fuck ‘em. You have to fight for that detail as a career staffer or beg for it as a political.  You thought you could get in the cage and your face got ate by a 9/11 truther. 
 

image.thumb.png.7a7b7ce420c2983f73802930c14bb1ff.png

Here's a live look at that meeting:

laura-loomer.jpg?w=1600&h=900&q=88&f=611

Posted
36 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Uh oh, I guess someone didn't hear him talk about tariffs like eleventy billion times on the campaign trail. 

FB_IMG_1743724784391.jpg

 

Gretchen, honey.   The dumb sonofabitch doesn't know what an "expat" is.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
9 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

image.gif.d7da047405efefb0a1225b53adaf9584.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
11 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

A lot of people about to get sizeable tax reductions from all this... it's just not how they envisioned getting it.

Haha. You don’t have to pay (income) taxes if you don’t have a job.

Posted
11 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

Quote

Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

…if only there was some higher federal court that could grant - I dunno - some kind of writ - and rule whether the states’ grounds for disqualifying a presidential candidate was proper. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

…if only there was some higher federal court that could grant - I dunno - some kind of writ - and rule whether the states’ grounds for disqualifying a presidential candidate was proper. 

To be fair, Roberts essentially saying “what do you want us to do? Our jobs?!” is pretty much the most relatable he’s ever been.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
20 hours ago, TexArcher said:

 

Which foreign war would you like us to end?  The one in Afghanistan?  Wait, someone already did that.  Your boy is going to start a war, not end one.

Cutting costs?  They're gonna raise the debt ceiling after they're done laying off federal employees and replacing them with loyalists, you dipshit.

Killing woke BS?  You elected a full-blown fascist because you were pissed off that some swimmer who was born with a dick beat some other swimmer who was born without a dick.  What state did that even happen in?  That's right, you don't know.  But you know you won't stand for it, because Tucker and Jesse and White Baby Jesus told you not to.

Just stop having thoughts at all.  You're a fucking idiot.  You and the rest of your monumentally stupid ilk have killed this country while jerking off to Lee Greenwood records and your F-16 posters.

Dumb redneck motherfuckers.

and that's the cycle!

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...