If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Trump in public asked the Russians to make public Clinton emails

:hand:

The 538 House-Lawyer specifically addressed this and said it was a nothing burger 🍔

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Just for the record, if a Democrat president were this corrupt and sickening, I'd be going after him/her as well. I objected strongly to party leaders when Hillary rigged the nomination, and I voted for that Libertarian candidate who seemed to think Allepo was a brand of dog food. I'm very active in Democrat politics, but I don't hesitate to vote for Republicans or support them financially if they're the better candidate. So trying to pin this on partisanship isn't gonna hack it. That is simply your own TDS deciding that criticism is always a function of partisanship.

Also, there is a separate, sadly neglected thread about Crimes of the Clintons for your all your whataboutism. Please enjoy responsibly.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

A modern folk etymology[10] relates the phrase to domestic violence via an alleged rule under English law that allowed for wife beating provided the implement used was a rod or stick no thicker than a man's thumb.[6] While wife beating has been officially outlawed in England (and later, the United States) for centuries, enforcement of the law was inconsistent, and wife beating did continue. However, such a rule of thumb was never codified in law.[3][11][12]

English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the late 1700s in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that by an "old law", a husband had formerly been justified in using "moderate correction" against his wife, but was barred from inflicting serious violence. According to Blackstone, by the late 1600s this custom was in doubt, and a woman was by then allowed "security of the peace" against an abusive husband[a] (Blackstone did not mention either thumbs or sticks).[3][7] Citing Blackstone, the twentieth-century legal scholar William L. Prosser wrote that there was "probably no truth to the legend" that a husband was allowed to beat his wife "with a stick no thicker than his thumb".[5][12]

The association between the thumb and implements of domestic violence can be traced to the year 1782, when the English judge Sir Francis Buller was ridiculed for purportedly stating that a husband could beat his wife, provided he used a stick no wider than his thumb. There is no record of Buller making such a statement; however, the rumor generated much satirical press, with Buller being mocked as "Judge Thumb" in published jokes and cartoons.[3][7][13]

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑

Woke pandering. Pretty distasteful.

Joe Biden needs a crash course in islamic culture if he thinks that domestic abuse sanctioned by law is a "white man" thing.

Also, the "rule of thumb" story is bullshit:

A modern folk etymology[10] relates the phrase to domestic violence via an alleged rule under English law that allowed for wife beating provided the implement used was a rod or stick no thicker than a man's thumb.[6] While wife beating has been officially outlawed in England (and later, the United States) for centuries, enforcement of the law was inconsistent, and wife beating did continue. However, such a rule of thumb was never codified in law.[3][11][12]

English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the late 1700s in his Commentaries on the Laws of England that by an "old law", a husband had formerly been justified in using "moderate correction" against his wife, but was barred from inflicting serious violence. According to Blackstone, by the late 1600s this custom was in doubt, and a woman was by then allowed "security of the peace" against an abusive husband[a] (Blackstone did not mention either thumbs or sticks).[3][7] Citing Blackstone, the twentieth-century legal scholar William L. Prosser wrote that there was "probably no truth to the legend" that a husband was allowed to beat his wife "with a stick no thicker than his thumb".[5][12]

The association between the thumb and implements of domestic violence can be traced to the year 1782, when the English judge Sir Francis Buller was ridiculed for purportedly stating that a husband could beat his wife, provided he used a stick no wider than his thumb. There is no record of Buller making such a statement; however, the rumor generated much satirical press, with Buller being mocked as "Judge Thumb" in published jokes and cartoons.[3][7][13]

I'm really concerned about Biden's newfangled "wokeness". Yes, it's likely to be just performative, but it's also the kind of shit that alienates moderate and independent votes.

Keating wrote: ↑ Because Kirb didn't close his bold tag.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ https..://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1111370387647021056

Trump does a good thing. And if you were a fan of DeVos, the absolute cruelty of defunding the Special Olympics should give you pause.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Because, of course it exonerates Trump... :whistle:

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:38 pm

QAnon + IQNot?

Old_ones wrote: ↑ https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/a0a4f287-c ... 9be5cbb4e7

https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/3253da3e-e ... c667ec956e

https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/8a883f52-4 ... 8cffb1eaa8

https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/4e3dd87f-a ... 0f7034ef1b

Every argument with republicans or trump supporters ever ^^

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

Trump places lips firmly on Saudi ass.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Most people would consider turning sand into glass to be progress.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been told nuclear wars have a low post-conflict immigration rate.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Hold onto your horses. I thought Saudi already had a full deck of Paki-bombs? Meh.
And this worst kept secret ever deal is for nuclear power.
And matching Iran tit for tat with unrealised potential is one way to piss on their parade.

Once we let NKorea get the bomb we pretty much made non proliferation a moot point.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been told nuclear wars have a low post-conflict immigration rate.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been told nuclear wars have a low post-conflict immigration rate.

I've been told that joking about nuclear warfare is vicious. :P
There have never been hydrogen bombs used in conflict. I wouldn't bet against the possibility of massive migrations to less radioactive, southern hemisphere locations if it ever happened. That nice juicy big desert in Australia would be an ideal new homeland for many millions of displaced Arabs and other muslim types.
I've been told they have a natural affinity for parched, sunbaked wasteland. Allah might even bless the area by putting giant oil reserves under it.

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ Also, considering that John "Delenda Teheran" Bolton is still calling the shots, this move is likely an open threat to push the Iranians to react, and then whip up a case to invade.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’ve been told nuclear wars have a low post-conflict immigration rate.

I've been told that joking about nuclear warfare is vicious. :P
There have never been hydrogen bombs used in conflict. I wouldn't bet against the possibility of massive migrations to less radioactive, southern hemisphere locations if it ever happened. That nice juicy big desert in Australia would be an ideal new homeland for many millions of displaced Arabs and other muslim types.
I've been told they have a natural affinity for parched, sunbaked wasteland. Allah might even bless the area by putting giant oil reserves under it.

Wow, nuclear-blasted radioactive wasteland or Australia. Tough choice.

Keating wrote: ↑ I don't get it. Didn't Mueller's office come out and explicitly say a story was false? Do you seriously believe the Mueller would let Barr cover up the real story?

Keating wrote: ↑ Didn't Mueller's office come out and explicitly say a story was false?