US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
 
How long before Coulter's Law kicks in?
Once we get an article + headline.
Disgusting that Biden is letting all these mass shootings happen under his watch. Blood is on his hands and I can't believe we elected this monster.
1617249656556.png

1617249700500.png
 
I don't agree with 100% of the things Biden has done, but I still agree with a lot more of the things he has done than I would've if Trump had won, so I am not sure your point.

Just because you vote for someone doesn't mean you agree 100% with their actions. It's basically choosing the lesser of two evils. The difference is that I can say stuff that the guy I voted for did that I disagree with, while you guys seem to whiteknight the guy you vote for in every action he does.
"today he seems to have a functioning memory but he still gets angry" sounded like what one would say about dementia daddy
 
And no pictures of either shooter in an age filled with cell phone cameras :thinking:
Which, of course, means they're niggers or any other variant of non-white. Notice how the "Happy Ender" had his picture plastered all over the news after he got caught, and yet, for the Mudslime shooter in Boulder, it took them a full day to tell us that he was an Allahu Akbar and then was promptly memory-holed. I predict it's gonna be the same with these two.
I mean, are you gonna be whipping out your phone to get a pic during an active shooting?
The one in CA is in custody. The other one, they're still looking for, but the fact remains, the fact that they haven't released info on the suspects yet makes me think Coulter's Law is in effect here.
View attachment 2047990
And the hits keep comin'
And they don't stop comin'
April Fools! This isn't in anyway newsworthy! It's just another Thursday in Baltimore!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol wut?

Even in the United Cuckdom of Great Britain I'm allowed to have a rain barrel. The rain that falls on my house is my rain.

Alot of places are starting to get rid of it, but it's total bullshit. The argument is that you are preventing water from replenishing the aquifers even though it's been shown rainwater doesnt make it to it.

Edit: the no rain collecting law is bullshit, not repealing it to be more clear.
 
Last edited:
Alot of places are starting to get rid of it, but it's total bullshit. The argument is that you are preventing water from replenishing the aquifers even though it's been shown rainwater doesnt make it to it.
The right to gather/divert rainwater is actually a legal issue that goes back Roman Law.

From Gaius' Institutes:

(12) Moreover, some things are corporeal and others are incorporeal.

(13) Corporeal things are those that can be touched, as, for instance, land, a slave, clothing, gold, silver, and innumerable other objects.

(14) Incorporeal things are such as are not tangible, and are those consisting merely of rights, as, for instance, inheritances, usufructs, and obligations, no matter in what way the latter may have been contracted. For while corporeal things are included in an estate, and the crops gathered from land are corporeal, and what is due to us under the terms of some obligation is, for the most part, of a corporeal character, for example, land, slaves, money; still, the right of succession, the right of use and enjoyment, and the right of obligation, are incorporeal. To the same class belong rights attaching to urban and rustic estates, which are also called servitudes. Among these are the right to raise a building higher and obstruct the lights of a neighbor; the right to prevent a building from being raised, so that the lights of a neighbor may not be obstructed; the right to the use of streams, and to have rainwater fall upon the premises of another. . . .
Which is just to say that the right to do what you want with rainwater was considered in the same class as the right to raise your house higher, rather than the right to do what you want with your land (i.e. sell it, give it away, etc.). Not sure how it works in modern American law, but it's a longstanding legal issue of what right one has to rainwater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back