Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

[Dr J]

Well, now's as good a time as any to post this

https://archive.ph/lIwBd

This after he defended Polanski but not before he defended Nick 'srhbutts' Nyberg, Cuties, the Drag Queens and a whole host of other paedophiles.

Funnily enough he's deleted this tweet. I wonder why?

 

[RockVolnutt]

@Ralph Barnhardt Wow, that is an amazing rake Bob stepped on. Of course, of course anything Bob wrote so long ago isn't proper fodder to use to criticize him ... a rule that he absolutely would not apply to anyone he dislikes.

Fun fact: those idiot Believers and right wing Mayoughoulen have wanted to see Polanski's ass in prison for the last 45 years. Absolutely nothing has changed since 2009 or even since his initial flight from sentencing that should have realistically changed anyone's view of the man, save what the media-entertainment complex currently has a hair across its ass about.

Those kinds of defenses always confuse the hell out of me. It reminds me of how a lot of "progressives" would give you some backstory for themselves which involved them having very repugnant views about women and minorities which they excuse with "we all go through a phase" even if they were around 28 when they did it. They always leave me dumbfounded because they're things that would never cross my mind even as somebody who loves offensive jokes. If you actually buy into it anyways.

 

[Mola Ram]

If you actually buy into it anyways.

Of course you shouldn't buy into it. These defenses are, to put it simply, lies.

I think the most repulsive thing about Bob's defense of Polanski is his assertion that Polanski has proven in the intervening years that he doesn't pose a threat. Yeah, I'm sure the convicted rapist millionaire film director living abroad in France, who has mused on camera about the sexual wonders of young girls, and whose industry has repeatedly demonstrated they will never ever hold him to account for anything, has lived a quiet life of chastity since scurrying away from court.

Bob will say literally anything if he thinks he's sticking it it the Obsolete, and defending Polanski is absolutely part of that.

 

[NaviSpider]

Those kinds of defenses always confuse the hell out of me. It reminds me of how a lot of "progressives" would give you some backstory for themselves which involved them having very repugnant views about women and minorities which they excuse with "we all go through a phase" even if they were around 28 when they did it. They always leave me dumbfounded because they're things that would never cross my mind even as somebody who loves offensive jokes. If you actually buy into it anyways.

It's quite a clever way of saving face. By exaggerating your previous views it makes your current ones look better because "I've grown smart, changed and I'm better than I was, therefore my views are better". Simultaneously, it lets you demonise your opposition even more, you get to say any strawman you want because "well I used to think like that, so they must all do". And it (in theory) protects you from getting cancelled for prior views because you've "seen the light".

This is a very rare case of Bob admitting he was once wrong about something without trying to deflect it. He somehow still manages to portray it with his patented smug sense of superiority. This should have been a point of self reflection for him, if you can be wrong about something in the past you could very well be wrong about things now. But that would require the spiteful little homunculus piloting his empty head to look into a mirror and admit that he's not the superior being.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

And they don't stop coming!

https://twitter.com/N0__S0ul/status/1553087133509771265

https://archive.ph/61o4u

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/1553091962785390592

https://archive.ph/hjxnN

Two things:

1. Maybe someone could point to me to the pieces of media where "LOL your son got buttfucked" was a punchline that was met with canned laughter? I have no memory of this and would love to know which show and/or movie did some version of this. The only one that I can even think of that dealt directly with child molestation was the one episode of Diff'rent Strokes where Arnold almost got raped by a bicycle repair man and that was most certainly not for laughs.

2. A sincere and heartfelt fuck you Bob. Your explanation's shit and your reasoning's all retarded. As fellow Bobologist @Mola Ram correctly pointed out, not a damn thing has changed since fucking 1977. "Wah! We could've looked up the court documents but we just didn't" You fucking inept brainlet you ended your big brain think piece by asking if Polanski had suffered enough. How would've looking at the case files improved changed your opinion that Polanski, whom you said in the same exact article was guilty and still believe is guilty so it sounds like you were pretty well informed, had suffered enough? I hope this shit becomes the new albatross around your neck much like the McDonalds tweet, the eugenics tweet, or the Lindsay picture.

Never forget Lord of Lynn, wise philosopher king of Boston, that this is the world you have loudly advocated for for years.

 

[CharlesBarkley]

Bob, defender of cuties, Polanski and Nyberg? We sure there is a tweet floating by him where he defends Sandusky?

 

[JayHarrison]

View attachment 3540838
(The Federalist article)

So... Democrats want to secure democracy by actually destroying democracy, I take it.

---

Don't tax my Superior Future Coastal Elites Who Actually Matter; tax the greedy Midwest pig-ghouls instead!
View attachment 3540156

Objection! Evidence?

---

View attachment 3537908
May I ask what slurs do "pronouns" stand for?

In my opinion, the word woke is directly synonymous with "idiot Leftoid".

---

Gaypox continues to spread.
View attachment 3540163
So is Bobby saying that he wishes the gays would stop barebacking (which is homophobic and erases the existence of gay men), or is he suggesting that we'd rather not report the rising cases?

My guess is the latter.

---

View attachment 3540066
No Bobby I'm sure your account is secure by now.

Moviebob: "If I said what [Joe Manchin] should've been instead, I might lose this account."

I ask yet again: Moviebob's repeatedly violated Twitter's TOS without punishment, so what's another TOS violation going to result in? Moviebob getting a firmly worded yet meaningless letter as to how disappointed Twitter is in Bob's actions?

---

https://twitter.com/N0__S0ul/status/1553087133509771265

https://archive.ph/61o4u

View attachment 3543110

"Lesson learned", my ass! Remember when Moveibob "apologized" for that infamous eugenics tweet? Moviebob still firmly believes that eugenics is the fyuuchaa because abortion is integral to eugenics!

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

"Lesson learned", my ass! Remember when Moveibob "apologized" for that infamous eugenics tweet? Moviebob still firmly believes that eugenics is the fyuuchaa because abortion is integral to eugenics!

Something I forgot about in regards to how Bob apologizes.

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/786651948623728640

Like Kurosawa, I Make Mad on Twitter: "Well, one more thing: I'm sorr…

archived 12 Nov 2021 19:03:41 UTC

archive.ph

For whatever reason Bob refused to listen to someone he allegedly cared about about Devin Faraci for reasons that only make sense to him. Maybe it was for clout. Maybe it was because this person's story was clearly bullshit. Regardless, Bob turned on him when it was either beneficial for him or the heat was too much, giving a reason that he and his merry band of mental midges would never accept today. It's on the same level of his excuses given today. Again I wanna point out

 

[Open Window Maniac]

And they don't stop coming!

https://twitter.com/N0__S0ul/status/1553087133509771265

https://archive.ph/61o4u

View attachment 3543110

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/1553091962785390592

https://archive.ph/hjxnN

View attachment 3543120
Two things:

1. Maybe someone could point to me to the pieces of media where "LOL your son got buttfucked" was a punchline that was met with canned laughter? I have no memory of this and would love to know which show and/or movie did some version of this. The only one that I can even think of that dealt directly with child molestation was the one episode of Diff'rent Strokes where Arnold almost got raped by a bicycle repair man and that was most certainly not for laughs.

2. A sincere and heartfelt fuck you Bob. Your explanation's shit and your reasoning's all retarded. As fellow Bobologist @Mola Ram correctly pointed out, not a damn thing has changed since fucking 1977. "Wah! We could've looked up the court documents but we just didn't" You fucking inept brainlet you ended your big brain think piece by asking if Polanski had suffered enough. How would've looking at the case files improved changed your opinion that Polanski, whom you said in the same exact article was guilty and still believe is guilty so it sounds like you were pretty well informed, had suffered enough? I hope this shit becomes the new albatross around your neck much like the McDonalds tweet, the eugenics tweet, or the Lindsay picture.

Never forget Lord of Lynn, wise philosopher king of Boston, that this is the world you have loudly advocated for for years.

I can't tell what's the more schizo take: the guy saying Bob holds himself accountable and makes a sincere effort to learn from his mistakes or Bob considering himself to be a film writer?

Bob, defender of cuties, Polanski and Nyberg? We sure there is a tweet floating by him where he defends Sandusky?

"Sandusky was doing the world a favor when he got the NCAA to bring down the hammer on such a backwards Believer program like Penn State football."
- Moviebob, avowed eugenicist and Ohio State supporter

 

[Tronathon242]

Bob, defender of cuties, Polanski and Nyberg? We sure there is a tweet floating by him where he defends Sandusky?

Nah. Sandusky was in the field of Obsolete, physically demanding sports. Polanski admittedly did create artistic triumphs like Chinatown, which means Bob will go to bat for him.

This whole thing also got me thinking about a quote from Mao. "We must support whatever the enemy opposes, and oppose whatever he supports."

Doesn't that really fit Bob to a T? "The proto-mayoghoulen don't like Hollywood? Better write up a piece defending a child molester within the institution!"

I must admit even I didn't think Bob was capable of this, but boy were my low expectations shattered under his weight.

 

[Bolo]

Bob will say literally anything if he thinks he's sticking it it the Obsolete, and defending Polanski is absolutely part of that.

Nothing more can be said but that, Robert is that simple of mind.

"Disney is being accused of treating their FX artists like shit? Well Ben Shapiro also said that and said Disney is bad, soooooo guys, it ain't just Disney abusing the artists, you gotta focus on on the problem!!"

"What? Huffington Post said something bad about Roman Polaski. Well, you sse, yeah, what Polanski did is baaaad, buuuuut come one you guys, he is an artiste!!"

Also, if someone's apology starts with "Oh, that was such a long time ago", then it doesn't matter how much "mea culpa" someone cries after, they are not sorry, they are just annoyed that you brough back past shame.

Not to mention that to plea to the notion of "it was such long time ago, I've changed, I've learned my lesson", yeah, this shit doesn't carry much weight when it is clear that you don't show the same grace when judging others? Don't want past shame to smack you in the face? Don't act as if you are the arbiter of good and evil, or thinker and believers as you put it you git.

As for why Robert had such a change of heart between 2009 and now? Has the man who was almost 30 at the time finally learned that pedophilia is bad?

Nah, Robert was leniant on Polanski because of this:

Standing ovation from our Hollywood betters. Robert is nothing but a sponge for main stream college lib think and at the time (2003) the notion that "yeah, Polaski did a bad, but he is talented!" was easy to uphold in Hollywood and in general mainstream media because there was no social media monster to call shit out and set the "I'm hollier than thou" game that the hollywood folks need to play now to get a certified "I'm a good person™" so they can stay in the clubhouse.

Just for perspective, this guy was Hollywood king just 4 years before people were standing clapping for Polanski:

So the notion of "Terrible person, but makes good movies" was very ingrained in the hollywood culture, and thus a lot of the mainstream liberal sentiment, you know, the shit Robert eats with a spoon, and so, back in 2009, when the social media nightmare still wasn't in full swing, then it was a rather confortable take for Robert to take a pedo dwarf's side.

No really, Polanski is a midget:

 

[Open Window Maniac]

Nothing more can be said but that, Robert is that simple of mind.

"Disney is being accused of treating their FX artists like shit? Well Ben Shapiro also said that and said Disney is bad, soooooo guys, it ain't just Disney abusing the artists, you gotta focus on on the problem!!"

"What? Huffington Post said something bad about Roman Polaski. Well, you sse, yeah, what Polanski did is baaaad, buuuuut come one you guys, he is an artiste!!"

Also, you someone's apology starts with "Oh, that was such a long time ago", then it doesn't matter how much "mea culpa" someone cries after, they are not sorry, they are just annoyed that you brough back past shame.

Not to mention that to plea to the notion of "it was such long time ago, I've changed, I've learned my lesson", yeah, this shit doesn't carry much weight when it is clear that you don't show the same grace when judging others? Don't want past shame to smack you in the face? Don't act as if you are the arbiter of good and evil, or thinker and believers as you put it you git.

As for why Robert had such a change of heart between 2009 and now? Has the man who was almost 30 at the time finally learned that pedophilia is bad?

Nah, Robert was leniant on Polanski because of this:

Standing ovation from our Hollywood betters. Robert is nothing but a sponge for main stream college lib think and at the time (2003) the notion that "yeah, Polaski did a bad, but he is talented!" was easy to uphold in Hollywood and in general mainstream media because there was no social media monster to call shit out and set the "I'm hollier than thou" game that the hollywood folks need to play now to get a certified "I'm a good person™" so they can stay in the clubhouse.

Just for perspective, this guy was Hollywood king just 4 years before people were standing clapping for Polanski:

View attachment 3543744

So the notion of "Terrible person, but makes good movies" was very ingrained in the hollywood culture, and thus a lot of the mainstream liberal sentiment, you know, the shit Robert eats with a spoon, and so, back in 2009, when the social media nightmare still wasn't in full swing, then it was a rather confortable take for Robert to take a pedo dwarf side.

No really, Polanski is a midget:

View attachment 3543764

The Oscars turned off the comments section on the video of Polanski getting a standing ovation.

 

[Mola Ram]

Nothing more can be said but that, Robert is that simple of mind.

"Disney is being accused of treating their FX artists like shit? Well Ben Shapiro also said that and said Disney is bad, soooooo guys, it ain't just Disney abusing the artists, you gotta focus on on the problem!!"

"What? Huffington Post said something bad about Roman Polaski. Well, you sse, yeah, what Polanski did is baaaad, buuuuut come one you guys, he is an artiste!!"

Also, you someone's apology starts with "Oh, that was such a long time ago", then it doesn't matter how much "mea culpa" someone cries after, they are not sorry, they are just annoyed that you brough back past shame.

Not to mention that to plea to the notion of "it was such long time ago, I've changed, I've learned my lesson", yeah, this shit doesn't carry much weight when it is clear that you don't show the same grace when judging others? Don't want past shame to smack you in the face? Don't act as if you are the arbiter of good and evil, or thinker and believers as you put it you git.

As for why Robert had such a change of heart between 2009 and now? Has the man who was almost 30 at the time finally learned that pedophilia is bad?

Nah, Robert was leniant on Polanski because of this:

Standing ovation from our Hollywood betters. Robert is nothing but a sponge for main stream college lib think and at the time (2003) the notion that "yeah, Polaski did a bad, but he is talented!" was easy to uphold in Hollywood and in general mainstream media because there was no social media monster to call shit out and set the "I'm hollier than thou" game that the hollywood folks need to play now to get a certified "I'm a good person™" so they can stay in the clubhouse.

Just for perspective, this guy was Hollywood king just 4 years before people were standing clapping for Polanski:
View attachment 3543781

So the notion of "Terrible person, but makes good movies" was very ingrained in the hollywood culture, and thus a lot of the mainstream liberal sentiment, you know, the shit Robert eats with a spoon, and so, back in 2009, when the social media nightmare still wasn't in full swing, then it was a rather confortable take for Robert to take a pedo dwarf's side.

No really, Polanski is a midget:

View attachment 3543764

The only defense of Polanski that carries any water is that you could argue the guy was fucked up (to put it mildly) from that unfortunate encounter his wife and unborn child had with the Manson Family, but frankly the sympathy from that well ran dry a long time ago, and besides, he's clearly always had a penchant for young girls.

 

[Laughingjoke2]

I want to add some context to the Polanski thing and why Bobert ever defending that scumbag was repugnant and is/was Left Hollwood's protection of Polanski.

Polanski during an unsupervised "Photo Shoot" with a 13-year-old girl when he was 43 at the home of Jack Nicholson and Angelica Houston, they were an item then Jack was out of town, but Angelica was home and suspected something but left once Polanski said everything was fine. During said shoot Polanski gave the girl Champagne and Quaaludes and forced her to the bedroom where she kept telling him no and he forced her to "Oral Copulate" him and he sodomized her according to police reports.

Polanski has never denied doing this except claiming there were no drugs involved and the sex was "consensual" and "everyone want to fuck young girls." these are his exact words from an interview he gave back in the day when he originally ran.

Polanski was originally given a 90-day psych evaluation at Chino to determine his mental health for sentencing because he made a plea deal. But 1st he went to Europe to finish a film and while there partied in Germany during Oktoberfest with some very young-looking girls. Oh, and the dumbass got photographed doing it. He came back to the U.S. did 42 of the 90 days and him and his legal team assumed he'd get probation, but the judge saw the photo and the wind was moving towards jail time, so he ran to France and has been there since.

There was a director named Elia Kazan he was one of the great of the Golden Age of film with men like John Ford, Orson Wells, Frank Capra, Howard Hawks, Victor Fleming, & Alfred Hitchcock to name some others. 3 films of his I recommend are Viva Zapata, A Face in the Crowd, and On the Waterfront and On the Waterfront is important Brando plays a dockworker who use to be connected to the corrupt union and he sees their corruption and is trying to stop them. He confronts them at the end in front of the other Dockworkers and this scene was Elia Kazan telling the Hollywood left FUCK YOU.

Kazan was an immigrant from the former Ottoman Empire and in the 30's during the depression he became like many did disillusion with capitalism and turned to communism. Except Elia eventually saw the flaw in a system that advocated for the lazy as much as it did the hard working. By the 50's he was called before the House Committee on Unamerican Activities where he was asked if any of the names given to him by the committee were ever communist to his knowledge from his time as a communist and he gave a truthful answer of yes and said which names. This was his "Crime" being called to the U.S. House of Representatives and answering truthfully. Because of this when he was given an honoree Oscar in 1998 some like Karl Malden who played a priest in On the Waterfront gave him a standing ovation. Steven Spielberg clapped but sat and many lefties in the room sat on their hands when he received the award.

I mentioned Kazan because knowing all I just said about Polanski in 2002 he won the Oscar for best director and couldn't except in person due to "legal reasons" but got a standing ovation from the whole room.

The Me-Too movement has forced leftist to distance themselves from Polanski, but never forget for 40 years they knew what he did, and they worked with him, celebrated him, wrote his praises, and even justified and downplay his actions. While holding grudges for decades to others who never physically hurt anyone and actually did their legal obligations as a citizen just due to political differences. The Blacklisted in Hollywood never went hungry and never went without a roof, but "betraying" them was unforgivable while raping a child and stealing her innocence was just another Thursday in Hollywood.

Fuck you Blobby if people can be cancelled for "misgendering" troons than you deserve far worst for defending that piece of shit Polanski.

 

[Positron]

Those kinds of defenses always confuse the hell out of me. It reminds me of how a lot of "progressives" would give you some backstory for themselves which involved them having very repugnant views about women and minorities which they excuse with "we all go through a phase" even if they were around 28 when they did it.

Yet the unwoke is eternally condemned if they cracked a "racist" joke in high school.

The Catholic Church, for example, has made public apologies for the misdeeds of their clergies, yet the woke refuse to forgive. They continue to tar them as pedophiles.




AOC is not alarmed about the illegal leak from SCOTUS, but she is very alarmed by a member of the SCOTUS exercising his legal expertise.

"Can the government ignore the SCOTUS ruling". Good question. I would certainly love to see state governments annul all gay marriages in their states.





Anthony Reed:

---

Bobby supports committing crime for hedonism's sake, as in the case of, you know, Polanski.



People should get rid of their hang-up for racism. If racism helps a cop does his job efficiency, then racism is good in that line of work.

A Dillard store-clerk allegedly called a customer a nigger. Because racism turns away customers, it is bad in that line of work.

However, apologizing to retards is also bad for business.

---

Polanski. When Bobby is offended he trawls the offender's party for wrongthink or even wrongfollows -- but in this particular case he merely threatens to.




Again, what on earth does "Phase" mean in MCU?





With everyone above water eager to sexually ravage him (see yesterday's update), it's natural that Namor sees them as enemies.

---

More Batshit.






Announcer: "The new Superman is... Jonah Hill!"
Mark Wahlberg's character: "FUCK!"

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Quote "At least in part, I think that Polanski fascinates because his existence stands as an open challenge to our neatly-composed sense of good and evil".

I'm glad Bob has stopped believing in such outdated notions like this, now he knows the world is only Believers who choose to be stupid and evil at all times and Thinkers who choose to be good and smart at all times.

Bob's hatred of BvS is amusing because the movie's about Bruce and Luthor having succumbed to black-and-white thinking about Superman, since he has the potential to end humanity and they don't individually have control over him, he must be killed now.

Those kinds of defenses always confuse the hell out of me. It reminds me of how a lot of "progressives" would give you some backstory for themselves which involved them having very repugnant views about women and minorities which they excuse with "we all go through a phase" even if they were around 28 when they did it. They always leave me dumbfounded because they're things that would never cross my mind even as somebody who loves offensive jokes. If you actually buy into it anyways.

It's quite a clever way of saving face. By exaggerating your previous views it makes your current ones look better because "I've grown smart, changed and I'm better than I was, therefore my views are better". Simultaneously, it lets you demonise your opposition even more, you get to say any strawman you want because "well I used to think like that, so they must all do". And it (in theory) protects you from getting cancelled for prior views because you've "seen the light".

It's also hilarious to me because they're saying they were untrustworthy once so I should trust them now? I love the versions where they're like "I fell down the rabbit hole thanks to YouTube channels and 4chan" and so I should trust you now because you're watching and reading different channels when you just admitted to me you form your views based on nothing but what you're apparently currently engaged in which explains your current views too? They never explain how they came to know the old positions were wrong other than some vague "it was bigotry" or "I was angry at the world" or something, simply that now they know better and hold all the correct positions on all topics.

It also reminds me of when Democrats, especially John Kerry as he was running for President, were running around claiming W. Bush fooled them into supporting the Iraq War which they also claimed they knew was bad otherwise. Why should I trust the person who got fooled over the person who apparently fooled so many? What did they learn if they can't articulate the how of the fooling? "Don't get fooled again"? Great, that was W. Bush's position too: "There's an old saying in Tennessee – I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says, 'Fool me once… shame on… shame on you. Fool me – you can't get fooled again."

They always think they know everything so even if these stories are true they didn't incrementally change their views over time until they realized they had changed them all. They always explain it as rejecting an entire selection of views on unrelated topics for an entirely new set. Falling out of a religion that underlies a bunch of views or becoming skeptical about reasons underlying views may explain why you reject old views but it says nothing about why you've adopted new ones. Your views on abortion shouldn't be tied to your views on gay marriage shouldn't be tied to your views on guns shouldn't be tied to your views on the top taxation rate shouldn't be tied to your views on military intervention. You tell me you changed all these simultaneously because of a recognition about one of them? So I'm supposed to follow you in this because now you know better though you can't explain how or why? You just conveniently swapped an entire main political party platform for the other main one without any steps inbetween and I should treat you as some kind of moral and intellectual sage?

I could probably explain to you the logical incremental progression of my views from simply adopting ones at a younger age that seemed most correct then taking signs from others and then my subsequent evaluation and testing of these views to my current ones. I've never seen one of these people do that so I suspect they can't. I've read communists and neo-Nazis who did change their views and they usually have very logical stories to it that often revolve around an outside entity or something else requiring them to deal with a contradiction in the core of the belief system. But these people are often like "I woke up one day and realized that Pepe was a hate symbol so I decided I'm With Her" while dealing in ideologies that aren't rigid and totalitarian like communism or Nazism. (Though maybe it's because they treat them that way...)

It's like Bob's advice to Liz Cheney (among many others), it's not just political suicide in Wyoming, he's literally asking her to change all her publicly claimed convictions and positions on almost every issue except disliking Trump. For what, mere approval from the chattering classes which she already gets just from opposing Trump? To show she's as morally bankrupt as Bob is? These people apparently fundamentally can't conceive of people, including themselves, legitimately holding views. They think it makes them seem cunning and Machiavellian when it just further exposes how completely stupid they are.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

AOC is not alarmed about the illegal leak from SCOTUS, but she is very alarmed by a member of the SCOTUS exercising his legal expertise.

"Can the government ignore the SCOTUS ruling". Good question. I would certainly love to see state governments annul all gay marriages in their states.

They can though what consequences they would face, if any, is completely unknown. The most famous example of the government, the federal in this case, telling SCOTUS to piss up a rope was in 1832. Worcester v. Georgia was a SCOTUS case regarding Indian tribe sovereignty. After the court ruled in favor of Worcester, then President Andrew Jackson allegedly stated "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

The reality is that SCOTUS can rule whatever they want but they have no ability to enforce anything. When the Constitution laid out the design for the federal government it did not make each branch equal. The legislative branch, congress, has the most power as it writes the law and is directly elected by the people and any appointees to the other two branches need to be approved by them. The executive branch, the president, is second as it is elected by the electoral college (Bob's forever nemesis), is the enforcer of the laws and deals with foreign relations however it cannot declare war despite what the past 70 years have shown. The judicial branch, SCOTUS and the federal circuit courts, is supposed to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench like they've been doing for all of our damn lives, and is the furthest from the people as they are chosen by the president with life time appointments. Even with the ballyhooed checks and balances the legislative branch still holds the most sway. The president can veto a bill but Congress can over ride a veto with 2/3's vote. The legislative branch can simply rewrite the law if the judicial branch says they can't do something. Despite what mouth breathers like AOC say the branches are NOT equal no matter how hard Bob claps for his kween. They would know this if they took basic civics.

So could the federal government ignore the SCOTUS ruling on Roe? Sure but what would they enforce? There's no law that they passed which has ALWAYS BEEN THE DAMN PROBLEM. Another thing these dumbasses keep forgetting, whether thru ignorance or flat out lying and I believe that it's the latter, is that SCOTUS never said abortion was illegal. They said that each state must decide for themselves and sent it back to the states. How does Congress and/or the president ignore a ruling that says "you do you fam but you have to decide to do you first" when there wasn't even a federal law in the first place? There are ways Congress and the president can get around the ruling, such as cutting funding for states that outlaw abortions, but that's not them ignoring the ruling. Could state governments ignore the ruling? That question itself doesn't make sense because they weren't forbade or allowed to do anything. If they keep allowing abortions, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do. If they outlaw abortions, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do. If they do some kind of hybrid, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do.

Bob can scream at the clouds all day about how SCOTUS is illegitimate and should be dismantled. It doesn't change that Roe had no legal basis, even admitted by the left's darling RBG, and every faggot member of Congress failed to codify Roe into actual law for almost 50 years.

 

[EnemyStand]

They can though what consequences they would face, if any, is completely unknown. The most famous example of the government, the federal in this case, telling SCOTUS to piss up a rope was in 1832. Worcester v. Georgia was a SCOTUS case regarding Indian tribe sovereignty. After the court ruled in favor of Worcester, then President Andrew Jackson allegedly stated "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

The people are supposed to enforce it. If they like the ruling, they're supposed to vote in politicians that support the ruling. If not, they'll vote in politicians who don't. That's the whole point of how our government's set up!

 

[Koby_Fish]

Yet the unwoke is eternally condemned if they cracked a "racist" joke in high school.

The Catholic Church, for example, has made public apologies for the misdeeds of their clergies, yet the woke refuse to forgive. They continue to tar them as pedophiles.
View attachment 3543519

View attachment 3541232

AOC is not alarmed about the illegal leak from SCOTUS, but she is very alarmed by a member of the SCOTUS exercising his legal expertise.
View attachment 3541236
"Can the government ignore the SCOTUS ruling". Good question. I would certainly love to see state governments annul all gay marriages in their states.

View attachment 3543528

View attachment 3541239

Anthony Reed:
View attachment 3543438

---

Bobby supports committing crime for hedonism's sake, as in the case of, you know, Polanski.
View attachment 3543655

View attachment 3543531
People should get rid of their hang-up for racism. If racism helps a cop does his job efficiency, then racism is good in that line of work.

A Dillard store-clerk allegedly called a customer a nigger. Because racism turns away customers, it is bad in that line of work.
View attachment 3543565
However, apologizing to retards is also bad for business.

---

Polanski. When Bobby is offended he trawls the offender's party for wrongthink or even wrongfollows -- but in this particular case he merely threatens to.
View attachment 3543458

View attachment 3543673

Again, what on earth does "Phase" mean in MCU?
View attachment 3543674

View attachment 3543658

View attachment 3543641
With everyone above water eager to sexually ravage him (see yesterday's update), it's natural that Namor sees them as enemies.

---

More Batshit.
View attachment 3541228

View attachment 3543426

View attachment 3543485

Announcer: "The new Superman is... Jonah Hill!"
Mark Wahlberg's character: "FUCK!"
View attachment 3543478

View attachment 3543500

View attachment 3543683

View attachment 3543634

View attachment 3543646

I wanna know why the fuck Bobby is pasting in two screenshots from arguably the worst (in terms of animation quality) Transformers episode of Season 3, Carnage in C Minor, in reference to "The Marvels"?

In the first image, Blaster's translating Bosso Profundo's 'music speak' (which is perfectly understandable TBH) to Ultra Magnus, when Bosso Profundo, the leader of the planet Eurythma, refuses to help the Autobots because he thinks the 3 part harmony that he and Allegra and Zebob Scandana can perform is enough to keep Galvatron at bay, unaware that Soundwave can record the harmony and play it back to use it against them. The second image, is Allegra reviving Zebob after the duelling Soundwave and Blaster fall on him.

Soooooo, all I can tell from this is that whatever is going on in "The Marvels" mirrors that bit from Carnage in C Minor somehow - a potential new ally refuses to help, but later on someone brings someone else back to life? Halp plz.

They can though what consequences they would face, if any, is completely unknown. The most famous example of the government, the federal in this case, telling SCOTUS to piss up a rope was in 1832. Worcester v. Georgia was a SCOTUS case regarding Indian tribe sovereignty. After the court ruled in favor of Worcester, then President Andrew Jackson allegedly stated "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

The reality is that SCOTUS can rule whatever they want but they have no ability to enforce anything. When the Constitution laid out the design for the federal government it did not make each branch equal. The legislative branch, congress, has the most power as it writes the law and is directly elected by the people and any appointees to the other two branches need to be approved by them. The executive branch, the president, is second as it is elected by the electoral college (Bob's forever nemesis), is the enforcer of the laws and deals with foreign relations however it cannot declare war despite what the past 70 years have shown. The judicial branch, SCOTUS and the federal circuit courts, is supposed to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench like they've been doing for all of our damn lives, and is the furthest from the people as they are chosen by the president with life time appointments. Even with the ballyhooed checks and balances the legislative branch still holds the most sway. The president can veto a bill but Congress can over ride a veto with 2/3's vote. The legislative branch can simply rewrite the law if the judicial branch says they can't do something. Despite what mouth breathers like AOC say the branches are NOT equal no matter how hard Bob claps for his kween. They would know this if they took basic civics.

So could the federal government ignore the SCOTUS ruling on Roe? Sure but what would they enforce? There's no law that they passed which has ALWAYS BEEN THE DAMN PROBLEM. Another thing these dumbasses keep forgetting, whether thru ignorance or flat out lying and I believe that it's the latter, is that SCOTUS never said abortion was illegal. They said that each state must decide for themselves and sent it back to the states. How does Congress and/or the president ignore a ruling that says "you do you fam but you have to decide to do you first" when there wasn't even a federal law in the first place? There are ways Congress and the president can get around the ruling, such as cutting funding for states that outlaw abortions, but that's not them ignoring the ruling. Could state governments ignore the ruling? That question itself doesn't make sense because they weren't forbade or allowed to do anything. If they keep allowing abortions, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do. If they outlaw abortions, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do. If they do some kind of hybrid, neat. That's what SCOTUS told them to do.

Bob can scream at the clouds all day about how SCOTUS is illegitimate and should be dismantled. It doesn't change that Roe had no legal basis, even admitted by the left's darling RBG, and every faggot member of Congress failed to codify Roe into actual law for almost 50 years.

Liz Cheney could probably get away with not only doing that but going full Democrat if they airdropped her, carpetbag in hand, into a safe D+38 district.

The people are supposed to enforce it. If they like the ruling, they're supposed to vote in politicians that support the ruling. If not, they'll vote in politicians who don't. That's the whole point of how our government's set up!

Bob's entire take on that is so monumentally galaxy-smoothbrained, it's unreal. It's like he doesn't actually understand how government anything works. I think the crayons he's been eating have lead in them.

 

[RockVolnutt]

@Koby_Fish Can't quote you but allegedly The Marvels is going to have musical numbers according to those leaks which is what Bobby's excited about. I suppose it would be in line with the surreal decisions Studios have been making.