Answer? Blow job. Because you can beat your wife; you can beat a drum; but you can't beat a blow job.
I have been Mocking Psychojawea and her little Paleface Blonde Tribe continuously for the last few years.
I’m sad to see it end.
it really is that simple. People simply do not want to accept that we have come to this.
The political divide here in the US is this.
One side loves the USA and everything it stands for.
The other side loath everything about the USA and wants to fundamentally transform it to be something radically different.
“Kengor, who is white and a male — not transgender, but the real thing — said nothing.”
There’s your problem right there. He should have called them out for microaggressions and had those bullies arrested for assault. Such things can make the victim dangerously ill, physically, according to a fascinating episode of New Amsterdam that I had the misfortune to watch.
The Washington Times is my all-time favorite newspaper!
The unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision intimidates Republicans from attempting to sue for libel. To justify this Justice Brennan wrote that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”But from an original intent POV, that is poppycock. To understand why, compare the First Amendment to the second.The Second Amendment assured the 18th Century American public that the right to keep and bear arms, as it then already existed, was unchanged by the then-new Constitution. It would be laughable to assert that preserving that right somehow legitimated armed assault.
Likewise the First Amendment assured the 18th Century American public that the right to own and operate a printing press as it then already existed, was unchanged by the then-new Constitution. And until 1964 it was as obvious that the First Amendment had no more effect on laws against libel that the Second Amendment had on laws against undisciplined use of firearms. Because libel was already understood to constitute a deadly attack on anyone’s reputation.
The Sullivan decision is what enables and empowers “the media.” SCOTUS should hear a challenge to it and issue an injunction which would make “the media” as loathe to libel a Republican as it already is to libel a Democrat.
But how to define “the media,” as opposed to, say, a (conservative, there isn’t really any other kind) talk radio program? IMHO that is an open-and-shut case. The definitive marker is membership in, or subscription to, (or being) a wire service. Because the wire services are continuous virtual meetings of all major journalists, ongoing since (in the case of the AP) before the Civil War. Why does that matter? Adam Smith explains:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”“The media” consists of the cartel which is the inevitable result of virtual meetings of its members. The “conspiracy against the public” which results is the political homogenization of its members. With the result that while Democrats never get libeled, Republicans are libeled with merciless abandon.The wire services exist to propagate the news while economizing on expensive telegraphy bandwidth. But now the expense of bandwidth is de minimus - and it would make no antitrust sense at all to allow wire services to assemble now, if they didn’t already exist.
Pull the plug on the licentious libeling of Republicans, and there will be a huge cultural shift. IMHO.
The article didn’t copy over correctly. Several paragraphs listed twice and the paragraph about what he overhead from the 2 women is missing.
Maybe mods can fix.