Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

I propose option E. The Irish be fucking
That notwithstanding, Native Americans only ever had black hair, which is a dominant trait (fitting, as they share this with their Asian ancestors, along with shovel-shaped incisors and a few other quirks). This means that all pureblood native Americans have the black hair gene double-dominant with no recessive genes for other hair colors.

If this lady’s mother had a recessive gene for red hair- which she would have to have in order for a child of hers to express the recessive red hair gene- then her mother literally cannot have been ‘full blooded’.

So her ancestral line appears to have more than one Casper in it somewhere, ergo not ‘full blooded’.
 
IMG_20220228_075334_371.jpg

Ukrainians are getting bombed and blown the fuck out of their countries yet this narcissistic Nigerian grifter has to make it about race.

You do realize Ukraine is closer to Ireland than to Nigeria, right?
 

I reported that one as it seemed like a slam-dunk. Guess not.


r.png



Clearly this is not threatening violence against a group of people, wishing harm" promoting violence because of identity (like race or gender), promoting violent extremism. How silly of me to think it was any of these things! I must have been drinking.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 3026768
Ukrainians are getting bombed and blown the fuck out of their countries yet this narcissistic Nigerian grifter has to make it about race.

You do realize Ukraine is closer to Ireland than to Nigeria, right?

Maybe Ireland knows that most Ukrainians will go back when the coast is clear, whereas refugees from brown countries will never leave and rape your women.
 
This looks less incriminating and more like Gary saying the Code of Hammurabi is lawful good in a really autistic way.
Wow, that's actually Gygax. It reads like an absolutely normal thing he would say. He's also right, "lawful good" is not some synonym for weak. It is not being some limp-wristed Goody Two-Shoes caricature.
 
Perennial Florida Democratic Congressional candidate, popular #Resistance tweeter, and JD from Boston College Law School has some thoughts on the First Amendment, treason and what constitutes a "time of war":
View attachment 3020860
View attachment 3020861
View attachment 3020863
View attachment 3020864

View attachment 3020865
Still going but closing her replies now since people have been mocking her:
1646068278506.png

1646068333267.png


Still thinks the United States is at war with Russia:
1646068351511.png


Her followers are equally stupid:
1646068399933.png
 
Still going but closing her replies now since people have been mocking her:
But that shit is wrong. Even if you do buy the general collateral estoppel argument, which is the kind of reach lawyers are literally trained to say but sounds like pure retardation in the light of day, entertainment like comedy is also protected by the First Amendment. So even on the planet where Faux is considered nothing but a pure 100% comedy channel, and let's be fair, it sometimes gets close to that, but even in that case, they're allowed to make jokes.

In fact, how can they possibly commit treason or defame anyone when everyone knows these are just the seltzer spraying clowns of "news?"

So this argument basically makes no sense. There is no "news only" interpretation of the First Amendment.
 
But that shit is wrong. Even if you do buy the general collateral estoppel argument, which is the kind of reach lawyers are literally trained to say but sounds like pure retardation in the light of day, entertainment like comedy is also protected by the First Amendment. So even on the planet where Faux is considered nothing but a pure 100% comedy channel, and let's be fair, it sometimes gets close to that, but even in that case, they're allowed to make jokes.

In fact, how can they possibly commit treason or defame anyone when everyone knows these are just the seltzer spraying clowns of "news?"

So this argument basically makes no sense. There is no "news only" interpretation of the First Amendment.
Don't worry, she has a plan to get a better majority on the Supreme Court in support of her "collateral estoppel" argument, simply prove Trump didn't win in 2016:
1646069282481.png


Everybody agrees:
1646069637563.png
1646069644836.png
1646069651455.png
1646069660442.png
1646069667231.png
1646069686320.png
1646069694865.png
1646069702280.png


Except the Russian Bots:
1646069676127.png
 
Last edited:
One of the things I like about Nick is that he gets some of the most annoying people to seethe just by streaming on a Twitch knockoff and telling edgy jokes.
It's more annoying as it is offensive and absurd. If people would just leave him alone, he would fade into obscurity. A footnote of the chronicles of Internet stupidity.
 
But that shit is wrong. Even if you do buy the general collateral estoppel argument, which is the kind of reach lawyers are literally trained to say but sounds like pure retardation in the light of day, entertainment like comedy is also protected by the First Amendment. So even on the planet where Faux is considered nothing but a pure 100% comedy channel, and let's be fair, it sometimes gets close to that, but even in that case, they're allowed to make jokes.

In fact, how can they possibly commit treason or defame anyone when everyone knows these are just the seltzer spraying clowns of "news?"

So this argument basically makes no sense. There is no "news only" interpretation of the First Amendment.

You'll be surprised to know that she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about and that's not what collateral estoppel means at all. Lawyers plead the alternative in cases all the time and in fact there are rules that specifically allow for it.
 
Back