Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2024, 01:35:03 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 104 »
641  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 25, 2018, 07:46:00 PM
1. We red tag joe for believing in something that can be easily refuted

2. I can now red tag people who believe the moon landing was fake

3. I can now red tag people who believe 9/11 was an inside job

4. I can now red tag communists because there's irrefutable evidence around the world communism doesn't work

5. I can now red tag religious people for believing in an imaginary man on the sky





First of all yes you and any users can tag anyone you want for any reason.
Second Vod has not red tagged anyone for any of those reasons so your logic is specious.

642  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 25, 2018, 04:26:26 PM

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

For some reason people think context doesn't matter when its actually paramount LOL.

You might just be on to something I think we should let scammers remain untagged as well since its their opinion that they are not scamming and limiting their opinions is a violation of free speech as well...

I also don't think we should ban plagiarists since it's there opinion they are not doing anything wrong!

Murders shouldn't be prosecuted (at least any murder who's opinion is they are doing nothing wrong).

The OP is retarded, mentally unbalanced or lying and we as a society are not doing them or ourselves any favours letting him think hes a special snowflake who somehow beat science.

We literally have 1000's of photo's of the fucking earth, simply put even a retard can look at a picture and say round.

No we shouldn't make room for the OP's opinion we should ridicule and laugh his demonstrably retarded ass out of the fucking gene pool.
643  Economy / Reputation / Re: I was given negative trust by member Vod for an opinion and would like help on: September 25, 2018, 12:31:28 PM
You should change the thread title to something more accurate like:

"I was given negative trust by member Vod for being too stupid to understand reality and would like help"

Part of the problem in society today is that we allow self incredulity to be passed off as opinion as is exampled very clearly with our OP!
644  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 25, 2018, 03:15:59 AM
Water boils at 100C you don't get to have an opinion on that for fuck sakes

In my opinion it boils at 95C1



1 in Denver. I reckon I could be a good flat-earther if I wanted to.

Sub par flat earther because of lack of accompanying meme...

Also its not true about water boiling at 95C in Denver that is a NASA lie because sex in clouds on earth picture
645  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 25, 2018, 03:05:12 AM
The world is not flat, and there is substantial evidence to back it up. The appropriate course of action would be to present said evidence

No the appropriate course of action is to ridicule the retard because he can't understand a picture or video of an oblate spheroid and is less intelligent than the average 4th grader.  There is no need for evidence when you can use your fucking eyes to see it for fucks sake.

The problem with stupid people today is they don't understand facts are real no matter how many memes you read on the web.

Water boils at 100C you don't get to have an opinion on that for fuck sakes

No, I must not. You may want to look up "suspected" and "scam" in the dictionary. Vod seems to think that joerogers8 would be untrustworthy in a trade. Your attempt to make it about something else is laughable.

The problem with our ignorant friend is he deals in black and white only.  In reality the entire world essentially works on "scales" of gray!

To the ignorant the trust system is only for scammed or not scammed.  In reality they've been informed a million times the trust system allows for the gray areas in case a person feels that someone is untrustworthy based on behavior. Trust is not tied to a transaction or a verified scam despite the insistence to the contrary.

Giving someone a red tag does not silence them lol they are still 100% free to use the forum as before.  Banning them would be trying to silence them.
646  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 25, 2018, 01:14:07 AM

Also, are you aware that there is a huge number of scientists that believe in god, despicte all the FACTS that are against their religion?
Using your same logical deduction, how can you trust those people, especially when they are the ones that say that the earth is round (actually a geoid).


Well since logic isn't your strong suit I guess I will spell it out for you.
1) Anyone with an internet connection can google the millions of images and hours of videos we have of the fucking oblate spheroid we live on called earth.  Most 4th or 5th graders can prove the earth is not flat with a smart phone and internet connection.
2) No one can scientifically and empirically prove the sky daddy doesn't exist.
3) Science, peer reviewed experiments that make predictive and repeatable results require no trust, I don't have to trust them based on their personal belief in a sky daddy, the scientific method is literally designed so we don't have to trust anyone lol, surprisingly a lot like the blockchain but in a ironic twist all the conspiracy theory and religious nutjobs here don't like such a trustless system when it doesn't agree with their agenda!!


Not trusting someone in 2018 who can not understand simple basic logic seems perfectly fucking reasonable to me, but I guess I just expect to much from people eh.  I wouldn't give someone like that a nickel and thankfully we now have a warning in place.
647  Economy / Reputation / Re: Negative trust for an opinion? on: September 24, 2018, 10:20:47 PM
This is too funny I got -trust from Notbatman for agreeing that Vod beat him in an argument!

Now here's the real problem if a person believes the earth is flat and is determined against all scientific FACT to believe youtube video's and meme's than for the love of satoshi no one should be doing business with that person in a trustless environment because who knows when that person might think something like your money isn't really your's and no longer owes you anything or any other insane reason a meme tells him about!
648  Other / Meta / Re: It make sense that why theymos was talking about the YouTube channel on: September 24, 2018, 09:52:49 PM

If we check the traffic which are coming from social media then we will see the percentage is only 4.66% and YouTube is leading with 46.93%


YouTube is leading the way because of all the bounty hunter and ICO announcement videos which both have links to BTCT threads.

I don't really think the YouTube channel idea was meant to increase overall traffic to the forum but instead to increase good new traffic to the forum.
649  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 24, 2018, 01:22:51 PM

What's the excuse now for not conducting an investigation?

Midterms LDO  Grin  Shocked  Cool

Oh wait you mean the new made up reasons the republicans will use, gotcha now!
650  Economy / Collectibles / Re: Crypto Quilts / 100% Handmade on: September 24, 2018, 12:32:10 AM
Quilt #5 is complete!



I really like black so this might be my favourite so far although the 4 kings is pretty awesome too.  GL when this one hits the auction man!
651  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 23, 2018, 10:25:28 PM
Funny suddenly no one is cheer leading for Kavanaugh's removal here any more...

Meh this forum attracts all the conspiracy theory crowd .  Most of them are right wing males who for obvious reasons want Kavanaugh.  Site demographics are important even if you want to ignore them LOL.

Not to mention it does get tiring arguing with the knuckle dragging men here who have no interest in anything other than making sure their conservative religious judge gets on the SC.

Funny no one is cheer leading for the actual truth, because that is actually more important than political issues especially when dealing with a lifetime nomination to the SC and a generation of jurisprudence.
652  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 22, 2018, 05:37:12 AM
In more awesome news for the GOP, Senator Collins was "appalled" by Trumps latest tweet about Dr. Ford and that it was "inappropriate and wrong".

You can rest assured when Collins was answering that question she was speaking directly to the women in Maine who voted for her!

I wonder how far Trump will push Collins and Murkowski lol.
653  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 21, 2018, 09:56:49 PM

That's not how the criminal justice system works. You file a criminal report (ideally not 30 years late), and you provide the appropriate law enforcement agency with as much information and evidence as you can provide. The standard protocol for filing a criminal report is making an official statement. If there is no report, no statement, no evidence, there is no investigation.

Except that this isn't a criminal proceeding.  You do know the FBI does background investigations on someone being nominated to the highest court in the land right?  You do know that many times the FBI has re-opened background investigations based on new allegations right?  Specifically the FBI re-opened the background investigation into Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with her allegations, which again in an ironic twist had senate republicans demanding an FBI investigation into the new claims (some of those senators still sit on the committee today).  That investigation lasted 2 days.

You don't get to demand the FBI go dig through some ones life just based on statements alone. That is their discretion,

Really, digging through someone's life based on statements is literally a major part of a background investigation, they need to be corroborated or exculpated that's literally what an investigation is. Before nominating a person for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land this always happens and Kavanaugh has had them before.

That is their discretion,

And the presidents  Roll Eyes  but obstruction of justice is one of Trumps specialties!!!

BTW as it turns out there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for this alleged crime and no reason why a sitting judge on the SC can't be indicted.

What is a shame is how bad this is being handled by both sides it seems to me American politicians have learned nothing in the 27 years since Anita Hill and both sides of the aisle should be ashamed with their behavior.

On top of that the American people IMO should be furious with their politicians who have created this hyper-politicized environment overall not specifically this noms hearing.  It isn't healthy when the goal of each party is their own interests and not the interest of truth and the American people!
654  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 20, 2018, 04:50:15 AM
Check the timelines on nom's getting in, even if someone is rammed through starting today there isn't enough time before the MT's.

The schedule is defined by the Senate majority. If McConnell wants, he can bring a final nomination vote to the floor on the same day as the President makes the nomination. It would be highly unusual,

Not only would it be highly unusual it's simply not realistic here, can he do that, technically sure.  Even McConnell knows as partisan as the senate is a lot more than 2 republican senators will have a pretty major issue not letting reasonable due process happen for a SCOTUS nomination...  While the republicans hold a majority it is literally the smallest majority possible so McConnell knows he has to be extremely careful.  McConnell even told Trump Kavanaugh was going to be a hard guy to sell even with senate majority.

No one is talking about a senate vote for another nominee before MT's.



How 65 women came to Kavanaugh’s defense in matter of hours

That's a cute article I have one as well and this one has 200.  200>65 since you like to bold out how many people have signed a letter!

Quote
The alumnae behind the letter of support are from Holton-Arms School, a private all-girls school in Bethesda, Maryland. Sarah Burgess, an alumna who graduated in 2005, told HuffPo that, as of late Monday morning, more than 200 fellow alumnae had signed on to the letter.


Elizabeth Warren

@SenWarren
 Christine Blasey Ford is brave, deserves to be heard, and treated with respect as she raises new questions about Brett Kavanaugh.  No votes until that happens.

9:11 AM - Sep 17, 2018
40.5K
10.9K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The letter's authors wrote that "Ford's experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton," and said that "many of us are survivors ourselves."

The letter of support for Ford stands in contrast to a separate letter, written by 65 women who purport to have known Kavanaugh while in high school. That letter was sent to judiciary committee chairperson Sen. Chuck Grassley, and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and in it, the authors and signatories vouch for Kavanaugh's character and behavior toward women.

https://www.bustle.com/p/women-from-christine-blasey-fords-high-school-are-supporting-her-in-a-pointed-letter-11940759

655  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 20, 2018, 03:00:37 AM
Why should the president do so if the accuser is unwilling to testify under oath to the Senate and answer some questions about her accusation?

Well I can actually think of 1 really really really good reason  Shocked  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes and you actually claimed to care about the reason why he should, it's called finding out as much of the truth as we can so we can make a determination on the validity of the claim.  The man is nominated to the highest court in the land... She hasn't said she won't answer questions in fact if the FBI was to investigate she would be subpoenaed if unwilling to testify on her own...

If she truly wants this she should testify and present her information. If she chooses not to testify the Senate should proceed to a vote without her information.

She will testify to the FBI if they demand it.  Anyone actually wanting the truth should be doing whatever they can to get the information from here, if only the president could make an agency do some digging to find out the truth, gee that would be sweet.

However, I am currently sceptical of this accusation and suspect a partisan ploy. I would like to see Ms. Ford testify in the hopes that the truth of the matter reveals itself.

Except you want her to testify before allowing one of the best investigative agency the American people have access investigating the claims.  Seriously does that sound like someone that wants the truth?

Anyone on the judiciary committee would have access to her sworn testimony when interviewed by the FBI we may not get it but they can, but they don't want it...

who is then confirmed before the Democrats have any possibility of taking back the Senate.

Check the timelines on nom's getting in, even if someone is rammed through starting today there isn't enough time before the MT's.

That is obviously a major motivator here for both parties, dems want to delay in case they can get the senate back and the republicans want to ram him through in case they lose the senate haha, ironic both parties are preparing for the possibility of a wave of blue!!!!

The voters on the left seem highly polarized to vote this time and voters on the right believe Trump when he says a wave of red is coming.  If the right gets lazy they might just lose the senate!

What happens after will depend obviously how each party does in the MT's

Clearly both parties are acting in self interest, to think otherwise is naive at best.

....whether or not the women was almost raped........

"Almost raped" sound a lot to me like "almost pregnant."

It is or it is not.

I guess getting almost shot in the head sounds a lot like getting shot in the head.

You do know attempted rape is actually a real thing and a crime right??

I guess if a man was trying to have sex with you against your will and was almost successful short of one lucky reason then you wouldn't consider it almost raped.

656  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 20, 2018, 01:14:14 AM
Honestly I don't think this is going to turn out well for the Democrats. Too may people on both sides of the political aisle still value truth, justice, and the presumption of innocence over the exercise of raw power and unprovable allegations.

LOL ya right both sides of the political aisle only care about their side of the aisle don't be so naive.  The republicans are trying desperately to stack the SC and the dems are trying desperately to stop that from happening until they can do the stacking...  The only reason Murkowski and Harris were thinking of breaking the party line on this vote before is the abortion issue and the importance of that 1 issue to their personal political careers IE the women in their states that voted for them...  Otherwise it would have almost surely been a full partly line vote.  The dems knew this and targeted those 2 women so hard, you can be sure the republicans were doing the same behind closed doors.

Well Flying Hellfish I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one.

We could debate whether the accusation of attempted rape is life destroying or not


You're so worried about Kavanaugh's life being destroyed yet what about the vitcims life IF the allegations are true her life is far more "destroyed" but the right who speaks about wanting the truth already made up their minds without allowing the FBI to do their duty without an actual investigation...  The president is so concerned about the truth I still haven't seen the WH issue the direction to the FBI to do it's job.

Dr. Ford is under no obligation to talk to the senate committee moral or legal in public or private and for you to demand that she does so before an organized investigation is conducted is the same as not caring about the truth in order to pencil whip a nom through the house, ya you want the truth alright nah you want a hardcore conservative in the SC at least be honest with us and yourself.

It's kind of funny how Dr. Ford is accused of lying and being set up by the right, yet they have the power to demand the best people in the world find out as much as they can. 

For some really strange and odd reason the women the right accuses of lying wants these people to investigate and the right who claims to want the truth doesn't want them to investigate and would very much rather try and ram Kavanaugh's nom through the house...

Critical thinking is important even if almost entirely missing from this forum.

The right is shitty their pants about 2 things
1) Trump massively fuck the republicans and they party is shitting their pants at the thought of a wave of blue in the MT's and are desperate to get Kavanaugh in knowing this may be their last nom they can force through LOL
2) The right is worried the women isn't lying and having the FBI involved in that scenario really isn't going to turn out well for the right.
657  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 19, 2018, 11:23:24 PM
She is making a life destroying accusation against an individual who by all other accounts has led an impeccable life.

Life destroying???  You certainly have a flair for the dramatic.  It is by no means a life destroying accusation.  It will not land him in any criminal trouble (for pretty obvious reasons), he won't lose his current bench because of it.  MAYBE the accusation costs him his seat on the SC but just being a nom is not a guarantee of a position anyways.  This is hardly life destroying...


She has offered no concrete evidence other then her word.
Quite untrue, she has offered quite a number of pieces of corroborating evidence outside of her word.  You denying them doesn't make them less real.

She has so far refused the opportunity to state her accusations in public or in private in front of the US senate which has rearranged its schedule for the sole purpose of hearing from her.

Careful now you're in danger of making more incorrect statements.  AFAIK she has stated (a sentiment echoed by anyone else wanting truth...) she would like to wait until the FBI can further investigate the issue before deciding to talk with the senate or not.  Gee I mean if you were actually seeking the truth wouldn't you want to have the FBI report on the incident, like after they talked to Judge UNDER OATH and checked out the women in Mexico's story?  Or is getting a conservative rammed through the senate more important than allowing US law enforcement to do their job...  Oh I forgot the FBI is a Dem honey pot right? LOLOLOL

Why would someone lying WANT the FBI to investigate it?  Why would the Republicans want to bypass the process of finding out the truth the best way we can and hold the vote ASAP

Furthermore she has a history of political activism for the Democratic Party.

So did Trump whats this have to do with whether or not the women was almost raped...

Maybe you are right, however,  and a simple accusation alone will be enough to destroy Kavahaugh. That would say a lot about the state of our country today.

This place if full of drama lama's it is far from a simple accusation despite your persistence's otherwise and it will hardly destroy Kavanaugh You simply can't be sure with all the other issues that Murkowski and Harris were voting for him anyways.  He just might have been sunk before all of this. He was historically the least popular SCOTUS nominee in American history prior to this allegation...

Honestly I don't think this is going to turn out well for the Democrats. Too may people on both sides of the political aisle still value truth, justice, and the presumption of innocence over the exercise of raw power and unprovable allegations.

LOL ya right both sides of the political aisle only care about their side of the aisle don't be so naive.  The republicans are trying desperately to stack the SC and the dems are trying desperately to stop that from happening until they can do the stacking...  The only reason Murkowski and Collins were thinking of breaking the party line on this vote before is the abortion issue and the importance of that 1 issue to their personal political careers IE the women in their states that voted for them...  Otherwise it would have almost surely been a full partly line vote.  The dems knew this and targeted those 2 women so hard, you can be sure the republicans were doing the same behind closed doors.
658  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 19, 2018, 08:52:31 PM
I continue to be shocked shocked I tell you as more damming "evidence" keeps surfacing.

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911111
Quote
WASHINGTON — A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

Never mind the fact that the accuser stated that she never told anyone about this until 2012. Minor details minor details.
You guys are so awesome at how you can ignore simple things.  Here's one for you Dr. Ford claimed she didn't tell anyone and if you ignore the fact that there were 3 people in the room then it would seem unlikely anyone else would know about it.  BUT since there was supposedly 3 people in the room isn't it at least possible that the 3rd person (Judge) may have told one of their friends about it, perhaps in a moment of regret being part of it or bragging he stopped it.  Isn't also possible that Kavanaugh himself bragged about to his buddies or lamented about it to a friend in sincerity or while drunk again some other time.  See this is how stories make it around.

What a ridiculous, statement to make that just because someone else remembers hearing a story about it that some how instantly makes the accuser less credible.

Can one of you geniuses that assume this is a made up plot by the left explain to me why Dr. Ford placed 2 other witness in the room with her at the time, why did she give Kavanaugh such an easy way to corroborate his story with his old buddy.

I mean she could have said there were 2 others in the room because that's true and maybe shes hoping Judge would do the right thing.  Or if this was a set up job why have Judge in the room.  Judge has denied it so it's not like hes a dem plant otherwise they would have something on him and forced him to agree with her.

Come on republicans you have got to do better than that if you want to crack this set up hahaha.  Dems got you good on this one, see ya later Kavahaugh bye bye nomination!


659  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 19, 2018, 05:28:38 AM
What a shocking development Kavanaugh accuser is now refusing to testify in front of the senate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45568450
"The woman who accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her will not testify to the Senate next week, says her lawyer."



HAHAHA whats shocking is that the women has basically gone into hiding because she is receiving death threats and being generally abused by right wing nut jobs.  They are scaring a potential victim and trying to pervert the sanctity of the highest court in the land. If the right was trying to make the public feel more sorry for her they just accomplished their mission!!!

By the way can one of you guys that think this is a dem set up tell me why someone controlling such a set up mission would place Kavanaugh's buddy in the room with them by Dr. Fords admission?  I mean if it wasn't true and you're making this up why in the name of fuck would you place the perps buddy in the room and give him a chance to corroborate Kavanaugh's denial...  Surely you would go ahead and make it just him and her or even make sure there was a girlfriend near that saw her run out of the room or something or a girlfriend she told it to in confidence.

Also the lie detector corroborates her story.  I can't wait to hear the right say how bad lie detectors are but when they want to find the fucking snitch for the op ed piece they talk about lie detector tests hahahaha.

Thankfully the right picked the wrong guy this time and the left didn't drop the ball!  McConnell even told Trump he would have a major problem ramming Kavanaugh through Senate with his long paper trail but as usual Trump is too stupid to understand simple logic and is desperate to get a nom in that believes in ultimate executive power!
660  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on: September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM
The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

The claim in itself is not credible IMO, it is missing too many details and it doesn’t look like it can be corroborated.

I think there will be pressure on a small number of democrats to vote for him who represent “red” (leaning) states.

I think this might have had a bigger chance of derailing the nomination if it didn’t come out at a clearly politically motivated time.

It's cute you claim missing details and then dismiss it all without hearing Dr. Fords testimony??  It doesn't have to be corroborated (even though it is despite your claim to the contrary) because this isn't ever going to a court of law.  The senate and the judiciary committee are not bound by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" status of a court of law.

BTW especially since this isn't a court of law the lie detector test Dr. Ford took, the revelation in 2012 (pre political motivation) to her therapist (which IS corroborated by her husband BTW) is all going to be brought up! If you think the democratic senators questioning her are not going to bring up the lie detector test she took you're crazy bro, they will be parading that test high and far.

If you think a nominee being accused of attempted rape is not going to affect his nomination than just LOL.

I've seen no information at present that would indicate anything but the dems towing the party line on this one.  It would certainly complicate things if there was info to the contrary.

If you actually payed attention to what the dems are doing you would see that it is all laser focused at swinging Harris and Murkowski, this means they have 49 votes and only need those 2 women to vote no.

Clarence Thomas lost a hell of a lot more than 2 votes when he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill.  Now 27 years later a nominee is accused of attempted RAPE by a Dr. It really doesn't seem like much of a stretch to see a this affecting his nomination in a very negative way LOL yay!

The only hook Kavanaugh had open to him was that he was a minor and hammered. But by him categorically denying it happened he has turned this into a situation where one of them is lying and one of them is telling the truth.

When the dems questions him I guarantee the only thing Kavanaugh is going to say is "I don't have any recollection of that event taking place so I can not answer that question" and the dems will make him repeat that all fucking day long

Dr. Ford on the other hand is likely to give detailed accounts of the events of the night and other things from around the time.  She said she feared for her life, but ya Im sure this is no big deal and all politically motivated lmfao.

I pray to Satoshi that the republicans will try to smear Dr. Ford in front of Senator Harris and Murkowski, it would show the right has learned nothing in 27 years hahahahahahaha.

My cousins to the south can rest a little easier knowing that ~50% of the American people are one step closer to keeping their right to choose for themselves.  Crazy we still have to fight for this in 2018 but we should keep on fighting no matter what.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 104 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!