Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Would you be concerned if someone ate your favorite pet?
You guys certainly don't seem that concerned, considering that you want to dismiss all claims by claiming that there is not enough evidence to your satisfaction.
Do you have evidence it never happened?I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
lol this never happened.
I have not either, but a friend of mine did go there. Surprise, he went to voodoo ritual and what did they do? Killed a cat, drank its blood.
According to the article I linked…QuoteTrump and Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio, are charged with disrupting public services, making false alarms, telecommunications harassment, aggravated menacing and complicity.
Yes, it’s doubtful that the case will go anywhere, but it’s yet another example of the number of fucks that Trump gives about the truth and the potential consequences of his words and actions.
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns?
Where did you find this one? It just cracked me up! Thanks for joining us tonight, Roundy. I really really like this joke. Hahah.
I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.
The poll of 3,276 adults, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Harris did firm up some of her personal appeal: Thirty-seven percent say the debate made them feel more favorably toward her, vs. 23% less favorably. There was no such benefit for Trump: People by nearly 2-1 say the debate made them see him less favorably.
I can't think of a proper response that would validate my inflated sense of superiority so I'm just gonna insult your intelligence.
So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?Damn, so you're pointing out that your preferred law doesn't even effectively prevent deaths, while incidents where BLM and/or anti-immigration fascists set people on fire are largely handled preventatively. That sure is a take, if you wanted to make your argument a little weaker.
And, of course, that is before you remember that speeding is not the sole cause of all traffic accidents, or before you remember that more people drive cars than set immigrants on fire, so your metrics are a crime against data science. Yes, I mean crime. You're under arrest, and we're sending you to Rwanda.
Thank the Lord™ we don't take cues from the likes of you when deciding our laws - things would get real bad real quickly! It's so silly that you want to literally arrest poor, innocent sixty-somethings for just driving their cars. ;(