Rants and Raves

[QUOTE=SgtSoros;4982064]You keep swigging the Trump Kool-Aid about his coronavirus response. FYI, Obama-era officials met both the H1 N1 and the Ebola crises with SWIFT, effective federal action, prepared a 69-page playbook and briefed the incoming Trump administration about obtaining personal protective equipment, moving quickly to detect and contain potential outbreaks, and using the Defense Production Act to compel private companies to produce needed medical supplies.

Trump, however, disbanded the National Security Council team on pandemic preparedness and made cuts to public health programs and to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trump essentially wasted two months during which he downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, spread false information and contradicted his own medical advisors, refusing to take responsibility for the shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment and needed supplies. Now, he proposes lessening precautions, though infection levels in many areas, especially college towns are rising. It is hard to imagine a president doing a worse job. He deserves to be FIRED in 46 days.[/QUOTE]


You are just wrong Imo ... even head bureaucrat Dr fauci has said numerous times he Never felt trump departed from,or skewed his recommendations, and he was standing right there most of the time.
Ill take his direct quotes over your source, the once believable CBS news.(well at least it wasnt as blatant in Cronkites day)
Nearly 100% of the journalists there are inflicted with tds and it shows in their pieces, sticks out like a sore thumb,

and yet you take every word as the gospel, a 30 second critique,is all it takes to show the slant of that and most all stories not reports anymore.


God bless y'all, maybe someday you'll come to your senses.
Somebody once said "father forgive them for they not know what they do".

You debate well, but your sources of the information you use are skewing your views. As intended!

You wannna talk about cool aid OMG.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as my sweet grandmother used to say, "bless your heart".

I'll leave it with yall , my blood pressure just can't take it.

Just remember. We're all Americans, and even though we have different views, we should be all pulling the rope in the same direction.

We all bleed the same color, and should respect our flag. And our elders.

Politicians come and go, but trying to change what this country is founded on, is a Very dangerous thing....yall remember that when you go vote.
And please do go vote,however you vote is your right,if you dont vote its a slap in face to those that fought to give us that right.

I don't hate anyone, especially not over their political views.

God Bless you sarge, and all the rest.

[QUOTE=SgtSoros;4983557]Ah yes Antifa; Boogeyman to Trumpanzees everywhere. You ignore the threats to national security posed by white supremacist terror groups that have headed the FBI's list of domestic dangers for years. Unfortunately, this is all part of Trump's homicidally narcissistic plan to create a race war mentality all over the country as a way of riling up his white supremacist base, fomenting violence and scaring people away from the polls.

[I][B]U.S. federal prosecutors have produced no evidence linking dozens of people arrested in anti-racism protests in Portland, Oregon, to the antifa or anarchist movements, despite President Trumps assertions they are fueling the unrest, Reuters reports.[/B][/I]

[URL]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-antifa-idUSKCN2502NQ[/URL]

You know darn well they tried their damnedest to try to find a connection and the fact that they couldn't find these connections is proof of just how clever antifa really is. Clearly, antifa infiltrated the federal prosecutors.......lol[/QUOTE]OK, so I am basically somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. I won't speak on others opinions but on this subject I can. I have just recently (three weeks ago) returned to Atlanta from a three year stay in Seattle. I dealt with the "protests" on a DAILY basis. Not sure what the news here is telling you, but I know first hand what they were. There ARE organised professionals driving these. At this point antics is more just the name that covers them all. These aren't gatherings of peaceful locals, well unless you count the super-libs who drove in from Bellevue and took selfies before running like he'll before sundown. In the beginning there was an actual message to there movement. As time went on, hyper organised groups showed up and pushed things further and further. So while I do agree with some things you say sgtsoros, you are terribly misinformed on the going ons on the west coast. And I assure you, you have no idea what REALLY went on in CHOP. Mayor Durian did a lot to keep that off tv.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;4984454]Out of curiosity, what did she do (perhaps something that affected you?) that you disagreed with? A ruling? Etc?

(Just making sure you don't like her for your own reasons and not simply because you've been told not to by whatever media you follow.).

O.[/QUOTE]RBG did what no other Supreme Court justices ever has. She spoke out against a sitting president. It has always been tradition that Supreme Court justices stay out of politics. Even Justice Kavanaugh who was basically raped by Democrats in the Senate with bullshit charges and who in fact has sided with more liberal justices on the court on several rulings has stayed out of election politics. RBG was even admonished by Sotomayor who is the only other female justice and is as Liberal as they come. When it came to her rulings she has in the past been on the conservative side more than once I respect that but I do not respect how she tried to put her opinion into presidential election politics in her last few years.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;4936840]The douchy Catholic school kid?

O.[/QUOTE]Out of curiosity, what did he do (perhaps something that affected you?) that you disagreed with?

(Just making sure you don't like him for your own reasons and not simply because you've been told not to by whatever media you follow.).

A.

[QUOTE=SgtLurker;4984754]She swore up and down she would outlive Trump's presidency. She gambled and lost.[/QUOTE]Yep, she is looked at by liberals as an icon, but she screwed her own party by not stepping down under Obama, now we'll get another conservative justice, I'm not complaining, I look forward to Roe V Wade being overturned.

[QUOTE=SkyWookie;4984839]Yep, she is looked at by liberals as an icon, but she screwed her own party by not stepping down under Obama, now we'll get another conservative justice, I'm not complaining, I look forward to Roe V Wade being overturned.[/QUOTE]This is politics, so I would be hesitant to predict anything. I'm not sure Sen. McConnell has the firepower to push a nominee through before the election. If President Trump wins re-election it will become a moot point, however if VP / Sen / Mr (as you prefer) Biden wins, there will be huge pressure to have the new President make the appointment.

Is there precedence for this? Yes. You only need to go back to the end of the Obama administration when Sen. McConnell was adamant that the decision be postponed until after the (then) upcoming election.

Why the change of position? Then the Republicans were the minority and didn't want to be steamrolled by the Democratic majority. Now they are the majority and wish to steamroll the Democrats in the minority.

Will it play? Time will tell.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4985086]This is politics, so I would be hesitant to predict anything. I'm not sure Sen. McConnell has the firepower to push a nominee through before the election. If President Trump wins re-election it will become a moot point, however if VP / Sen / Mr (as you prefer) Biden wins, there will be huge pressure to have the new President make the appointment.

Is there precedence for this? Yes. You only need to go back to the end of the Obama administration when Sen. McConnell was adamant that the decision be postponed until after the (then) upcoming election.

Why the change of position? Then the Republicans were the minority and didn't want to be steamrolled by the Democratic majority. Now they are the majority and wish to steamroll the Democrats in the minority.

Will it play? Time will tell.[/QUOTE]Not accurate. Obama in WH, Repubs were majority in senate in 2016 when Scalia died. McConnell refused to call hearings until after election. Article III states Pres nominates, senate advise and consent. Majority rules. Doesn't need firepower, needs 50 votes

[QUOTE=AaronHamlet;4985168]Not accurate. [/QUOTE]I was watching the USA Open and completely screwed up one paragraph, but I stand by the fact that the rules change between when your party is in the majority and when it is in the minority.

It IS all political and the whole system has become FAR too polarized in the last few decades. We need a viable third and possibly fourth party to keep the big two honest.

Absent that, we need to start electing statesmen, not just politicians.

[blue]You can talk about how you disagreed with her rulings. You can talk about her ideology but I simply will not tolerate a person of her character and intelligence referred to in that manner. Before anybody complains that I'm taking sides because I'm known to be progressive, I did the same thing when Justice Scalia died. I disagreed with nearly every decision he handed down but he was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and deserved respect. Those of you who's posts I deleted if you do it again I will ban your users. I simply will not tolerate it.[/blue]

A2.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4985264]I was watching the USA Open and completely screwed up one paragraph, but I stand by the fact that the rules change between when your party is in the majority and when it is in the minority.

It IS all political and the whole system has become FAR too polarized in the last few decades. We need a viable third and possibly fourth party to keep the big two honest.

Absent that, we need to start electing statesmen, not just politicians.[/QUOTE]I would concur. It's been about money and power and that hasn't changed since way before Christ was a Corporal. True statesmen? They never get into the limelight in these times. It'll take Armageddon-level stink to restore normalcy and I'm all for it.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4985264]I was watching the USA Open and completely screwed up one paragraph, but I stand by the fact that the rules change between when your party is in the majority and when it is in the minority.

It IS all political and the whole system has become FAR too polarized in the last few decades. We need a viable third and possibly fourth party to keep the big two honest.

Absent that, we need to start electing statesmen, not just politicians.[/QUOTE]I completely agree, the two parties, the Dims and Repugs, are basically both peas off the same pod.

[QUOTE=Admin2;4985615][blue]You can talk about how you disagreed with her rulings. You can talk about her ideology but I simply will not tolerate a person of her character and intelligence referred to in that manner. Before anybody complains that I'm taking sides because I'm known to be progressive, I did the same thing when Justice Scalia died. I disagreed with nearly every decision he handed down but he was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and deserved respect. Those of you who's posts I deleted if you do it again I will ban your users. I simply will not tolerate it.[/blue]

A2.[/QUOTE]Thank you.

[blue][Deleted by Admin]

Do not ever try and include me into your stupidity again.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=SgtSoros;4985971]I completely agree, the two parties, the Dims and Repugs, are basically both peas off the same pod.[/QUOTE]Finally, something Sgt. George and I can agree on. The Dims have become the party of mindless anarchy and the Repugs the party of self serving putzbags, something they have always been. Disgusting.

[blue][Deleted by Admin]

The next time you do this I will ban you. I will not warn you again, if you try and include me in your stupidity one more time I will ban you without notice.

I am a progressive but you are nothing more than a troll. You don't give a shit what your content means, you only care if they will incite somebody to anger. I have no doubt on other sites you troll progressives as a conservative. I'm not angry at you, I hold you in contempt and feel nothing good nor bad about you but I will not pretend to be on your "side."

Do it again and see if I'm fucking lying.

A2[/blue]

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4985264]but I stand by the fact that the rules change between when your party is in the majority and when it is in the minority.

.[/QUOTE]Of course it does. It's a democracy, a democratic republic. Majority rules.

[QUOTE=AaronHamlet;4985168]Not accurate. Obama in WH, Repubs were majority in senate in 2016 when Scalia died. McConnell refused to call hearings until after election. Article III states Pres nominates, senate advise and consent. Majority rules. Doesn't need firepower, needs 50 votes[/QUOTE]All I will post is an article where Joe Biden said in 2016 the president has a 'constitutional duty' to fill SCOTUS seat even before an election, so even the democrat candidate for president thinks Trump needs to nominate someone. I understand that Obama didn't do it in 2016, then again Obama said their was NO way Trump would win so he waited expecting Hillary would be nominating someone. If he had the slightest clue Hillary would lose I think his reaction would have been different.

[URL]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12718080/joe-biden-president-constitutional-duty-fill-scotus-seat/[/URL]

I agree with your last point. I think turtle turtle will try to find SCOTUS vote right around election time. My hunch is trump definitely picks SCOTUS before 2020 ends. No way to know who's going to win this election.

[QUOTE=SkyWookie;4986920]All I will post is an article where Joe Biden said in 2016 the president has a 'constitutional duty' to fill SCOTUS seat even before an election, so even the democrat candidate for president thinks Trump needs to nominate someone. I understand that Obama didn't do it in 2016, then again Obama said their was NO way Trump would win so he waited expecting Hillary would be nominating someone. If he had the slightest clue Hillary would lose I think his reaction would have been different.

[URL]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12718080/joe-biden-president-constitutional-duty-fill-scotus-seat/[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=AaronHamlet;4986911]Of course it does. It's a democracy, a democratic republic. Majority rules.[/QUOTE]Not when the rule is stated in the Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of the majority and can only be changed by amendment. The filling of Supreme Court vacancies falls into this category.

The president has the constitutional authority to appoint a nominee when vacancy arises, and the Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm or block that nominee. Period.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4987036]The president has the constitutional authority to appoint a nominee when vacancy arises, and the Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm or block that nominee. Period[/QUOTE]Related: the Senate can also add justices to the Supreme Court aka "pack" the Court. This is also Constitutional.

Also related: the Senate can change procedural rules that greatly affect the confirmation process of Supreme Court justices. Ask Harry Reid about that.

The majority party of the Senate has significant influence, arguably more power than the Presidency when it comes to confirming Justices.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4987036]Not when the rule is stated in the Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of the majority and can only be changed by amendment. The filling of Supreme Court vacancies falls into this category.

The president has the constitutional authority to appoint a nominee when vacancy arises, and the Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm or block that nominee. Period.[/QUOTE]' . And he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for'.

Your argument makes no sense. What amendment is needed? You call it the whims of the majority, constitution calls it advice and consent. If you don't use the power you have, you lose it. If a SC justice dies 45 days before a general election and you have a D president and a D led senate or a Rep president and a Rep led senate, nominee gets a hearing. If you have a D president and a rep led senate or a rep president and a D led senate, nominee doesn't. Providing a hearing or not providing a hearing is not a whim, both are advice and consent. It's not hard.

Quote Originally Posted by AaronHamlet.

Of course it does. It's a democracy, a democratic republic. Majority rules.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4987036]Not when the rule is stated in the Constitution. It is not subject to the whims of the majority and can only be changed by amendment. The filling of Supreme Court vacancies falls into this category.

The president has the constitutional authority to appoint a nominee when vacancy arises, and the Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm or block that nominee. Period.[/QUOTE]First problem I see is that most people don't even know what type of gov. We have. Bullett is right we are governed by the constitution. We are a constitutional republic which means majority only matters in elections. Constitutional Republics actually protect the few over the many. Look at civil rights movement, look at LGBT rights movements, they were the minority and the constitution is where they argued that they had equal rights in all aspects and through the courts rulings were made based off the constitution give them the rights they deserved. Just saying we are not even close to being a Democratic Republic.

[QUOTE=TheWiseacre;4987166]Related: the Senate can also add justices to the Supreme Court aka "pack" the Court. This is also Constitutional.

Also related: the Senate can change procedural rules that greatly affect the confirmation process of Supreme Court justices. Ask Harry Reid about that.

The majority party of the Senate has significant influence, arguably more power than the Presidency when it comes to confirming Justices.[/QUOTE]That is why I want to see Commie Donnie and the Fascist Repukes even TRY to get a justice confirmed before January 20.

We mighty Democrats will bring a HELL down upon you MAGA-Rats for the next 8 years like you've never seen and you'll be begging for your lives. We'll pack the court with a dozen liberal justices that make RBG look like a NeoCon warmonger.

Like I sad just fucking try it. Democrats always win in the end.

I warned you motherfucking worthless MAGA-Cunts not to mess with us Mighty Dems!

Killer Nancy is taking off the gloves and ready to deliver the TKO to Draft Dodging Donnie during his final months in office:

[URL]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-doesnt-rule-out-using-impeachment-as-option-to-stop-trump-supreme-court-pick[/URL]

[QUOTE=TMeister;4987612]That is why I want to see Commie Donnie and the Fascist Repukes even TRY to get a justice confirmed before January 20.

We mighty Democrats will bring a HELL down upon you MAGA-Rats for the next 8 years like you've never seen and you'll be begging for your lives. We'll pack the court with a dozen liberal justices that make RBG look like a NeoCon warmonger.

Like I sad just fucking try it. Democrats always win in the end.[/QUOTE]Damn after that whooping you took from admin I thought like most yellowed belly Democratic cowards you wouldn't be back, but just like these liberal feminists are learning there is nothing better than a big MAGA cock to shut you up.

[QUOTE=TMeister;4987612]... We'll pack the court with a dozen liberal justices ...[/QUOTE]While the Constitution does not expressly prohibit "packing" the Supreme Court, both parties realize that this is a very slippery slope indeed and I believe that they will avoid attempting to change the size of the court to fulfill their wishes. They are smart enough to realize that any attempt to do so will eventually result in a counter-"pack" by the other party and the court will get larger and larger as time goes on, eventually rendering a meaningless and useless body.

President Roosevelt tried it but did not succeed. The foundation of our political system requires three separate and independent branches. It's not a perfect system, but no-one has come up with a better one.

[QUOTE=AaronHamlet;4987424]' . And he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for'.

Your argument makes no sense. What amendment is needed? You call it the whims of the majority, constitution calls it advice and consent. If you don't use the power you have, you lose it. If a SC justice dies 45 days before a general election and you have a D president and a D led senate or a Rep president and a Rep led senate, nominee gets a hearing. If you have a D president and a rep led senate or a rep president and a D led senate, nominee doesn't. Providing a hearing or not providing a hearing is not a whim, both are advice and consent. It's not hard.[/QUOTE]You are just reinforcing my point. The argument that started this off was whether or not a Supreme Court vacancy could be filled during an election year or whether we need to wait until after the election. My point was, and you seem to agree, that the Constitution says nothing about "election year exceptions. " Is it right to delay? Possibly. It unfortunately depends on your party affiliation. Is it the moral thing to do? Same answer. But if you are the President, you have the legal authority to nominate a replacement justice. That is all I ever said.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4987865]While the Constitution does not expressly prohibit "packing" the Supreme Court, both parties realize that this is a very slippery slope indeed and I believe that they will avoid attempting to change the size of the court to fulfill their wishes. They are smart enough to realize that any attempt to do so will eventually result in a counter-"pack" by the other party and the court will get larger and larger as time goes on, eventually rendering a meaningless and useless body.[/QUOTE]The main part you're leaving out is that Moscow Mitch is playing dirty and NOBODY likes a lying dirty hypocrite like him and Pedo Trump.

So when Moscow Mitch blocked the SCOTUS nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 because it was an election year but now claims that a vacancy should be quickly filled before Commie Donnie is booted out of the White House, well then the gloves come off and the Mighty Democrats unleash our fury upon the CORRUPT and WICKED GOP with ZERO MERCY at our disposal.

Like I said, if you Low IQ assholes play nice with us Powerful Dems and you MIGHT get some compromises from us since the Blue Team we will have ALL the power after Big Joe is sworn in. But if you choose to play like crybabies and sore losers, we WILL destroy you until you are ALL gone.

You've been WARNED, right wing pieces of shit.

[QUOTE=SkyWookie;4987442]Quote Originally Posted by AaronHamlet.

Of course it does. It's a democracy, a democratic republic. Majority rules.

First problem I see is that most people don't even know what type of gov. We have. Bullett is right we are governed by the constitution. We are a constitutional republic which means majority only matters in elections. Constitutional Republics actually protect the few over the many. Look at civil rights movement, look at LGBT rights movements, they were the minority and the constitution is where they argued that they had equal rights in all aspects and through the courts rulings were made based off the constitution give them the rights they deserved. Just saying we are not even close to being a Democratic Republic.[/QUOTE]I wasn't clear. We are governed as a democratic republic. We elect local and state officials, send them to DC to vote on our behalf. Civil rights Act was a piece of legislation passed by a majority of congress and senate and signed into law by a president. Courts don't legislate

[QUOTE=AaronHamlet;4988315]I wasn't clear. We are governed as a democratic republic. We elect local and state officials, send them to DC to vote on our behalf. Civil rights Act was a piece of legislation passed by a majority of congress and senate and signed into law by a president. Courts don't legislate[/QUOTE]I agree courts don't legislate, but a judge with not much more than a snap of his fingers can rule ANY law Unconstitutional making it null and void, thus again it falls on the constitution. Congress and the pres. Can pass all the laws they want and judges can line up and nullify every single one of them.

[QUOTE=Worf359;4987660]Damn after that whooping you took from admin I thought like most yellowed belly Democratic cowards you wouldn't be back, but just like these liberal feminists are learning there is nothing better than a big MAGA cock to shut you up.[/QUOTE]This photo will really sting a Low IQ Deplorable like you but it proves all you worthless MAGA Cucks are cocksucking queers LOL.

[QUOTE=Bullett64;4987887]You are just reinforcing my point. The argument that started this off was whether or not a Supreme Court vacancy could be filled during an election year or whether we need to wait until after the election. My point was, and you seem to agree, that the Constitution says nothing about "election year exceptions. " Is it right to delay? Possibly. It unfortunately depends on your party affiliation. Is it the moral thing to do? Same answer. But if you are the President, you have the legal authority to nominate a replacement justice. That is all I ever said.[/QUOTE]I agree. Curious how it will play out, but I hope a conservative will occupy RBG's place. After all, it's only for life. .

[QUOTE=TMeister;4988284]The main part you're leaving out is that Moscow Mitch is playing dirty and NOBODY likes a lying dirty hypocrite like him and Pedo Trump.

...

You've been WARNED, right wing pieces of shit.[/QUOTE]I'm not leaving out any salient point. I'm just patiently explaining what the Constitution says -- and what it doesn't say. I have been very careful to not put my personal political beliefs into any of my posts. You infer what they are at your own risk.

I also am very careful to call people, of all parties by their actual names or titles. What I am leaving out is all the name calling, personal slurs, doctored pictures, and actual lies that you seem to thrive on.

How old are you? 12?

[QUOTE=Niteluvr;4988525]I agree. Curious how it will play out, but I hope a conservative will occupy RBG's place. After all, it's only for life.[/QUOTE]Just wait until President Biden and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate seize power from the Corrupt Repukes.

We'll stack the SCOTUS with 4 or 5 more justices that are so left-wing it will make your little Deplorable Swamp Rat heads explode with anger.

And they will rule that bench for LIFE, which means you'll be rotting in the ground for decades and that court will still be obeying the Democrat agenda.

DEMS WIN LIKE WE ALWAYS DO.

[QUOTE=TMeister;4988484]This photo will really sting a Low IQ Deplorable like you but it proves all you worthless MAGA Cucks are cocksucking queers LOL.[/QUOTE]Come on snowflake you need to find some new material. Your chants of Russia Russia Russia are as played out as Don Lemmons ass. Soon we will have another conservative Supreme Court justice and we will start reversing the liberal bans on everything from criminal illegal immigrants to these Antifa and BLM terrorist.

Just a nice little reminder that most of Rapist Donnie's family have turned against him because they think he's a vile piece of shit.

Stare at this one long and hard, MAGA Rats. You're all melting down knowing President Biden is going to send this lying criminal scumbag to prison in a few months!

[QUOTE=TMeister;4988854]Just wait until President Biden and a Democrat-controlled House and Senate seize power from the Corrupt Repukes. We'll stack the SCOTUS with 4 or 5 more justices that are so left-wing it will make your little Deplorable Swamp Rat heads explode with anger.
And they will rule that bench for LIFE, which means you'll be rotting in the ground for decades and that court will still be obeying the Democrat agenda. DEMS WIN LIKE WE ALWAYS DO.[/QUOTE][URL]https://news.yahoo.com/history-side-republicans-filling-supreme-184809078.html[/URL]

The smell of defeat!

[QUOTE=Cbonia2;4989544]The smell of defeat![/QUOTE]Yea right, keep chugging that trump koolaid. Even the Russian press regularly chortles at Trump's incompetence. It was bad enough at the beginning when the world was just laughing at us. Now their opinions have devolved into unbridled scorn and derision. Former Trump Russia adviser Fiona Hill says the United States is increasingly seen as "an object of pity" and its standing on the world stage is eroding.

Said Hill: [I]We are increasingly seen as an object of pity, including by our allies, because they are so shocked by whats happening internally, how were eating ourselves alive with our divisions. Were the ones who are creating all this. Its not the Russians or the Chinese or anyone else. We are doing this to ourselves.[/I].

Its pretty clear to me Worf359, you have little respect for anything or anybody. And certainly not for facts. Its a shame that normal sane people have to get along and live with morons like you!

[QUOTE=Worf359;4987660]Damn after that whooping you took from admin I thought like most yellowed belly Democratic cowards you wouldn't be back, but just like these liberal feminists are learning there is nothing better than a big MAGA cock to shut you up.[/QUOTE]