|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 18, 2019 7:31:38 GMT -8
Give us more! Emily Ratajkowski is using her social media platform to voice her outrage over the recent passing of the bill in Alabama which makes nearly all abortions in the state illegal and make performing one a felony.
The 27-year-old model posed naked with nothing but her arms and a pink anthurium flower petal covering her private parts
She wrote, "This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape."
Now I really hope more states pass anti-abortion laws, and more celebrities would join Emily in her just fight. Kate Upton, for example.
The left keep using the line “25 old white men” passed this. What in the heck does being white have to do with this? Is there something wrong with being white? Are they saying that this must be bad because white people were involved? Also, they conveniently leave out that it was signed into law by a female governor. Being a straight white male, especially an old one is evil. Unless of course you are Bernie or Joe. |
|
|
|
Post by galtfan on May 18, 2019 11:16:05 GMT -8
Give us more! Emily Ratajkowski is using her social media platform to voice her outrage over the recent passing of the bill in Alabama which makes nearly all abortions in the state illegal and make performing one a felony.
The 27-year-old model posed naked with nothing but her arms and a pink anthurium flower petal covering her private parts
She wrote, "This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape."
Now I really hope more states pass anti-abortion laws, and more celebrities would join Emily in her just fight. Kate Upton, for example.
Showed this to my wife and she said she needs to pick a different flower, makes her look like she's got a small dick.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on May 18, 2019 12:38:42 GMT -8
Give us more! Emily Ratajkowski is using her social media platform to voice her outrage over the recent passing of the bill in Alabama which makes nearly all abortions in the state illegal and make performing one a felony.
The 27-year-old model posed naked with nothing but her arms and a pink anthurium flower petal covering her private parts
She wrote, "This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape."
Now I really hope more states pass anti-abortion laws, and more celebrities would join Emily in her just fight. Kate Upton, for example.
Showed this to my wife and she said she needs to pick a different flower, makes her look like she's got a small dick. LMAO, your wife wins the internet today |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 20, 2019 16:16:35 GMT -8
The modern submarine is not a simple machine. A loss of propulsion, unexpected flooding, or trouble with reactors or weapons can doom a sub crew to a watery grave.
Also, it’s a good idea to, like, close the hatches before you dive.
Call it a lesson learned for the Indian navy, which managed to put the country’s first nuclear-missile submarine, the $2.9 billion INS Arihant, out of commission in the most boneheaded way possible.
The Hindu reported yesterday that the Arihant has been out of commission since suffering “major damage” some 10 months ago, due to what a navy source characterized as a “human error” — to wit: allowing water to flood to sub’s propulsion compartment after failing to secure one of the vessel’s external hatches.
Water “rushed in as a hatch on the rear side was left open by mistake while [the Arihant] was at harbor” in February 2017, shortly after the submarine’s launch, The Hindu reports. Since then, the sub “has been undergoing repairs and clean up,” according to the paper: “Besides other repair work, many pipes had to be cut open and replaced.”
Remember, these people are often in charge of your Information Technology department, including Information Security.
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 21, 2019 7:07:42 GMT -8
Stay classy Hollywood.
It's called When Women Rule the World and the poster image — circulating at the Cannes Market and in trade publications including The Hollywood Reporter — features a bikini-clad woman (a Melania Trump-type character called Maria Putin, played by actress Anna Hera) holding two decapitated heads. One is bloodied up to look like Trump in a Make America Great Again hat and a shaggy blond wig. The other, a gray-skinned, bug-eyed zombie. "Meet the First Lady of the Future with her Heads of State," reads the tagline for the film from writer-director-producer Sheldon Silverstein.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 7:21:42 GMT -8
Stay classy Hollywood. writer-director-producer Sheldon Silverstein. Oh no, not again. |
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 21, 2019 8:14:40 GMT -8
The so called community:
A New York City Firefighter sustained a concussion and several broken teeth Saturday after police say he was assaulted while trying to stop a group of teens from harassing an elderly couple.
The 38-year-old off-duty firefighter was traveling on East 86th St. in Manhattan at around 9:25 a.m. Saturday when he noticed six teens “harassing” an elderly couple, a spokesperson with the New York City Police Department told Fox News.
The man reportedly tried to intervene -- and police say that’s when one unidentified member of the group punched the firefighter “with a closed fist,” knocking him to the ground. The suspect then continued assaulting the man while he was down, officials said.
The firefighter was taken to Columbia University Medical Center and treated for the head and mouth injuries.
Police describe the suspects as three males and three females between the ages of 15 and 17.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on May 21, 2019 11:46:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 21, 2019 12:23:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 21, 2019 12:25:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on May 21, 2019 12:35:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by danvilleshark on May 21, 2019 12:40:18 GMT -8
The so called community
The Tennessee man who was shot and killed outside his Cordova home last week was reportedly found holding a piece of paper that authorities think might be the key to bringing his killer to justice.
Bryant Ward, 24, was arrested in the killing of 61-year-old Bryan Hervey after police discovered Hervey holding a piece of paper with Ward's license plate number written on it.
Court documents obtained by FOX13 stated Hervey was seen running to his front door on May 15 shortly before he was killed. Home surveillance video taken from a doorbell camera appeared to show Hervey screaming for help as gunshots rang out in the background.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on May 21, 2019 13:27:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 21, 2019 13:42:38 GMT -8
Geez, Donald. Read the report. |
|
|
|
Post by Fugazi on May 21, 2019 13:46:03 GMT -8
Geez, Donald. Read the report. I want to read the report |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 14:14:38 GMT -8
Geez, Donald. Read the report. What's in the report that contradicts Mr. Trump? |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 21, 2019 14:46:11 GMT -8
Geez, Donald. Read the report. What's in the report that contradicts Mr. Trump? That the report concluded no obstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 15:17:29 GMT -8
What's in the report that contradicts Mr. Trump? That the report concluded no obstruction. The report concluded no obstruction. Mueller should be disbarred at best for trying to formulate it as "we couldn't prove innocence and lack of crime". That's not his job. If there's no viable evidence of a crime, then there's no crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 21, 2019 15:28:10 GMT -8
That the report concluded no obstruction. The report concluded no obstruction. Mueller should be disbarred at best for trying to formulate it as "we couldn't prove innocence and lack of crime". That's not his job. If there's no viable evidence of a crime, then there's no crime.
" Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement." |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 15:44:46 GMT -8
The report concluded no obstruction. Mueller should be disbarred at best for trying to formulate it as "we couldn't prove innocence and lack of crime". That's not his job. If there's no viable evidence of a crime, then there's no crime.
" Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement." For that Mueller has to be disbarred. This is one of the most vile statements a prosecutor can produce.
He doesn't need a confidence in "innocence". He needs to reach a judgement if the President "committed obstruction of justice", not the other way around.
He needs a confidence in guilt, and if he hasn't, then that person is innocent, and there's no need even to state that. It was a pure toss of shit over a fan, mostly for the democrats (otherwise they might've require a mental institution lodging), but it seems to work on you as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 21, 2019 15:53:51 GMT -8
" Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement." For that Mueller has to be disbarred. This is one of the most vile statements a prosecutor can produce.
He doesn't need a confidence in "innocence". He needs to reach a judgement if the President "committed obstruction of justice", not the other way around.
He needs a confidence in guilt, and if he hasn't, then that person is innocent, and there's no need even to state that. It was a pure toss of shit over a fan, mostly for the democrats (otherwise they might've require a mental institution lodging), but it seems to work on you as well.
It’s pretty simple. Trump said the report concluded no obstruction. I said that’s not correct and quoted the report where it said they couldn’t conclude no obstruction. Those are the facts I was discussing. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 16:06:06 GMT -8
For that Mueller has to be disbarred. This is one of the most vile statements a prosecutor can produce.
He doesn't need a confidence in "innocence". He needs to reach a judgement if the President "committed obstruction of justice", not the other way around.
He needs a confidence in guilt, and if he hasn't, then that person is innocent, and there's no need even to state that. It was a pure toss of shit over a fan, mostly for the democrats (otherwise they might've require a mental institution lodging), but it seems to work on you as well.
It’s pretty simple. Trump said the report concluded no obstruction. I said that’s not correct and quoted the report where it said they couldn’t conclude no obstruction. Those are the facts I was discussing. The fact that Mueller's report didn't prove obstruction means clear and simple, NO OBSTRUCTION. |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 21, 2019 16:08:41 GMT -8
It’s pretty simple. Trump said the report concluded no obstruction. I said that’s not correct and quoted the report where it said they couldn’t conclude no obstruction. Those are the facts I was discussing. The fact that Mueller's report didn't prove obstruction means clear and simple, NO OBSTRUCTION. Perhaps, but we were discussing what Trump claimed the report said versus what the report actually said. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 21, 2019 20:49:27 GMT -8
The fact that Mueller's report didn't prove obstruction means clear and simple, NO OBSTRUCTION. Perhaps, but we were discussing what Trump claimed the report said versus what the report actually said. The conclusion of the report is, from the judicial point of view, plain and simple: NO OBSTRUCTION. |
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 22, 2019 5:17:05 GMT -8
Perhaps, but we were discussing what Trump claimed the report said versus what the report actually said. The conclusion of the report is, from the judicial point of view, plain and simple: NO OBSTRUCTION. That’s simply not correct. Read the report and show me where it says anything close to that. There are somethings like 10 paragraphs that begin with Obstructive Act. And if your response includes a bigger font in addition to all caps, it still won’t be true. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 22, 2019 5:38:48 GMT -8
The conclusion of the report is, from the judicial point of view, plain and simple: NO OBSTRUCTION. That’s simply not correct. Read the report and show me where it says anything close to that. There are somethings like 10 paragraphs that begin with Obstructive Act. And if your response includes a bigger font in addition to all caps, it still won’t be true. I am not using a bigger font. "We couldn't prove the person is innocent" is a new, Mueller invented figure of speech for all "people of common sense", aka "people with the best intentions", aka "people who badly need Trump to be guilty of something". It still means nothing. The absence of "We indict the person of charges of X" means the person is not guilty of X. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 22, 2019 6:25:26 GMT -8
Diamonds and rubies, sapphires and emeralds:
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger on May 22, 2019 9:35:27 GMT -8
That’s simply not correct. Read the report and show me where it says anything close to that. There are somethings like 10 paragraphs that begin with Obstructive Act. And if your response includes a bigger font in addition to all caps, it still won’t be true. I am not using a bigger font. "We couldn't prove the person is innocent" is a new, Mueller invented figure of speech for all "people of common sense", aka "people with the best intentions", aka "people who badly need Trump to be guilty of something". It still means nothing. The absence of "We indict the person of charges of X" means the person is not guilty of X. DOJ policy is that you cannot indict a sitting President, so the fact that the report did not indict Trump was pre-ordained. When a sitting president is involved, it is a political process, not a criminal one. Look, you can say the Mueller report concluded that President Trump did not conspire or collude with the Russian Government. You can say I read Volume II of the Special Counsel's report and I concluded there was no obstruction. Heck, you can say Attorney General Barr read the Mueller report and he concluded there was no obstruction. But you can't say that after reading the report, that the Special Counsel, in his report, concluded there was no obstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by cjelli on May 22, 2019 9:46:01 GMT -8
I am not using a bigger font. "We couldn't prove the person is innocent" is a new, Mueller invented figure of speech for all "people of common sense", aka "people with the best intentions", aka "people who badly need Trump to be guilty of something". It still means nothing. The absence of "We indict the person of charges of X" means the person is not guilty of X. DOJ policy is that you cannot indict a sitting President, so the fact that the report did not indict Trump was pre-ordained. When a sitting president is involved, it is a political process, not a criminal one. Look, you can say the Mueller report concluded that President Trump did not conspire or collude with the Russian Government. You can say I read Volume II of the Special Counsel's report and I concluded there was no obstruction. Heck, you can say Attorney General Barr read the Mueller report and he concluded there was no obstruction. But you can't say that after reading the report, that the Special Counsel, in his report, concluded there was no obstruction. That particular process was absolutely political, but in a different sense, and it also sent to jail quite a few people.
The report concluded, by definition that there was no obstruction since it didn't conclude there was an obstruction. Everything else is a lip service and a fig leaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by LordNelson on May 22, 2019 12:37:36 GMT -8
DOJ policy is that you cannot indict a sitting President, so the fact that the report did not indict Trump was pre-ordained. When a sitting president is involved, it is a political process, not a criminal one. Look, you can say the Mueller report concluded that President Trump did not conspire or collude with the Russian Government. You can say I read Volume II of the Special Counsel's report and I concluded there was no obstruction. Heck, you can say Attorney General Barr read the Mueller report and he concluded there was no obstruction. But you can't say that after reading the report, that the Special Counsel, in his report, concluded there was no obstruction. That particular process was absolutely political, but in a different sense, and it also sent to jail quite a few people.
The report concluded, by definition that there was no obstruction since it didn't conclude there was an obstruction. Everything else is a lip service and a fig leaf.
Yes, in essence the exhaustive Mueller report concluded among the primary charges, nothing he investigated rose to the level of a serious crime that could stand up in any court of law. Any indictments would be legally flimsy and that is the selected investigators conclusion. Mueller packed his report with piles of discovered petty jay-walking stuff that democrats are still trying to turn into mountains. Dems must let go of their short sighted desperation to remove Trump at any cost. It's OVER. Deranged Dems claim they'll continue trying to oust Trump for the 'American people' but I don't think so. |
|
