Just kidding, bags!
Posted on 02/18/2019 10:04:07 PM PST by ransomnote
Why not me?
I didn’t going to urinalism school but I look dead on like Helen Thomas!
Yes?
No?
Maybe so?
Just kidding, bags!
Nice. Second the motion.
The whole long discussion about the airport photos is pretty irrelevant. She was in court for oral argument Tuesday and Wednesday, and asked questions. There’s a transcript. Hundreds of people would have been there.
After heeding your plea, I spent far too much time looking for some comments that I clearly recall JB having made.
I checked my FReepmail to get the dates as I had corespondened with a couple who picked up on them as well.
Seems somebody got them deleted as they are no where to be found.
I know what he’s said in the past, I don’t forget.
Or are you?
Seriously, I could make a woman outta that lunatic.
Just give me five minutes.
Uhhh. Make that an hour and a half. Yea. Hour and a half.
Ummmm.
We'll call you.
#DrawsTheLineAtHelenThomas
#WhoDoYouThinkIam
#Lazamataz?
"Ehrmigerd what did I step in?"
On your profile page, the “OK” button doesn’t work.
A real “banned or suspended” page would have a working “OK” button.
Not exactly true. In the US, if you prove a lawsuit, but had no damages, you are always entitled to nominal damages, i.e., $1. Sometimes people want to sue on principal but suffered no damage. Wasn't there a case that Trump won where he only got $1? Or was that someone else I am thinking of?
I like the notion of loser pays, in libel and in all cases. Most cases are governed by state laws, and so you'd need 50 states to change their laws to accomplish that system.
Now, the big change that needs to be made, and that requires the Supreme Court to revisit its prior rulings (as Justice Thomas suggested) is to get rid of the extra requirements that have to be proven if the plaintiff is a public figure. The Court held that because the first amendment was so important, there needed to be special protections for the media from libel suits. So they decreed that with public figures, it has to be shown that the defendant had actual malice toward the person who was libeled. Printing false information wasn't enough. That was totally legislating from the bench. Get rid of that requirement, which does not exist in the UK, and the press will instantly become a lot more honest.
That's the first time I've seen a cat with a segmentation fault (BSOD).
“Jussie Smollett’s mother, ex Black Panther, remains “dear friends” with Angela Davis
various sources | Feb 21, 2019”
Sounds like Smollett may be a bona fide red diaper baby. His dad wasn’t a Black Panther but I bet he could be in the same party ole Bernie likes.
Nothing hotter than a topless female in a hot tub. Here you go, baggie.
Republicans control the Senate. Do they even read their own damn bills?
GRAPHIC!!!
No way Trump is vetoing an anti-lynching law.
They're just too pussified and askurd of being called racist for opposing a bill like that. And they can't seem to articulate WHY its a bad bill. Imagine a Senate/House full of real men with cajones in the mode of a Donald Trump, if you can.
Thank you!
More info history ignored by Democrats
from
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/my/pings?more=437076624
Posts 1000 and 893
Ugly subject the teaching of whose history should not ceded to liars and collectivists on the left!
Bad slide.
Moar History!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas_C._Dyer
Leonidas Carstarphen Dyer (June 11, 1871 – December 15, 1957) was an American politician, reformer, civil rights activist, and military officer who served 11 terms in the U.S. Congress as a Republican Representative from Missouri from 1911 to 1933. In 1898, enrolling in the U.S. Army as a private, Dyer served notably in the Spanish–American War; and was promoted to Colonel at the war’s end.
Horrified by the race riots in Saint Louis and East Saint Louis in 1917 and the high rate of reported lynchings in the South, in 1918 Dyer was notable for proposing the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. In 1920, the Republican Party supported such legislation in its platform from the National Convention. In January 1922, Dyer’s bill was passed by the House, which approved it by a wide margin due to “insistent countrywide demand”.[2] The bill was defeated by the white Democratic voting bloc of the South in filibusters in the Senate in December 1922, in 1923 and 1924.
The failed attempts to pass anti-lynching laws
Anti-lynching bills and resolutions, by year
introduced, in the House and the Senate
1900
December 1901 The first time
anti-lynching measures are
presented to congress.
1905
1910
1917 Leonidas C. Dyer presents
one of the most famous anti-
lynching bills in the House.
He introduces it again in 1920,
1921, 1923, 1925, 1927, and 1929.
1915
1920
1922 Dyer’s bill is passed by
the House, but doesn’t make
it through the Senate.
1925
1930
1935
The House passed bills in
937 and 1940, but they were
killed by Senate filibusters.
1940
1945
1950
1952 Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr.,
the former president’s son,
tried and failed to pass anti-
lynching legislation in 1952,
1953, 1955, and 1957.
1955
1960
1965
1970
2018
2018 Over 100 years since congress
first tried to pass anti-lynching
legislation, senators Harris, Booker
and Scott are trying again.
(It would be great if the president could send the lynching legislation t back with these and other notes on this history, and get rid of the Thought crimes portion of the law.)
Oh, and wimmins with cajones too. Calm down, ladies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.