Thanks Nate. I t just comes easy when I am stating facts.
Uh oh.....
Coing from someone who was VAXED 14 times, BOOSTED 28 times.....
Seeing how the FDA has said in effect, "They ain't really all that safe after all">You're an imbecile.Beekeeper » 08 Feb 2026, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑ Coing from someone who was VAXED 14 times, BOOSTED 28 times.....
Did your mother make it through high school?
The Supremes , Love Child 1968MR-7 » 08 Feb 2026, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑ Word on the street is your wife was at home
She needed more, so she picked up the phone
A deep voice answered, it was Big Tyrone
She said get over here, I need that bone
Tyrone went over, she had a big smile
He **** her good, and for quite a while
A love child was born, she is 1/4 black
She's not your kid, and that's a fact
So, your little girl, is not yours at all
But she is a product, of Tyrone's balls
You still have Johnny, so you're not alone
Butt-**** each other, til the cows come home
Jackasses like you and Jonny are not man enough to take a stand against pedopjilia without attempting to hijack it and divert it to Trump.Blackvegetable » 07 Feb 2026, 7:24 pm » wrote: ↑murdock » 07 Feb 2026, 7:13 pm » wrote: ↑ https://ibb.co/pBDLBV0T
Guaranteed to work!
Left stains take note.

Tell me what you find ambiguous.....before we scan your responses...Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑ Jackasses like you and Jonny are not man enough to take a stand against pedopjilia without attempting to hijack it and divert it to Trump.
Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑ Uh oh.....
I think I may have struck a nerve...
Is one of them married to a guy?
You're an idiot...
Yes, this one

He inherited your swishy look....he could be yours.
You funny little cretin!! And full of imaginative **** at that!!Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑ You're an idiot...
Go help @Huey sweep up his teeth.
He has to finish this book before they will do that:Beekeeper » 08 Feb 2026, 9:29 am » wrote: ↑Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑ You're an idiot...
Go help @Huey sweep up his teeth.
You fullny little cretin!! And full of imaginative **** at that!!
Did you get your Pre-K diploma yet??

Did you decline, CoMorbidity Box Set?
Second, Mr. Trump’s argument ignores the fact that the verdict in this case was a special verdict governed by Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The form of theHuey » 08 Feb 2026, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑ He has to finish this book before they will do that:
@Blackvegetable
I suppose we should put you down as for the cure in the OP.Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑Second, Mr. Trump’s argument ignores the fact that the verdict in this case was a special verdict governed by Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The form of theHuey » 08 Feb 2026, 9:32 am » wrote: ↑ He has to finish this book before they will do that:
@Blackvegetable
verdict, including the fact that it did not ask the jury to decide exactly what conduct Mr. Trump committed in the event it found for Ms. Carroll as to sexual abuse – was approved by Mr. Trump as well as by Ms. Carroll. In these circumstances,
“A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the
pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the jury unless, before the jury retires, the
party demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission,
the court may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is
considered to have made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special
verdict.”
Neither party made any such demand here. So the jury (or the Court) is deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict unless the Court makes a contrary finding.
In other words, the jury is deemed to have found that the specific conduct in which Mr. Trump actually engaged was such that the damages award was justified provided the evidence permitted such a finding.
And for reasons discussed in greater detail below, the evidence of the
attack generally coupled with forcible digital penetration of Ms. Carroll justified the damages awarded regardless of the jury’s finding adverse to Ms. Carroll on the New York Penal Law rape question.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .212.0.pdf
any questions?