My theory - and buckle up, buttercup - is that if the silly caption identifying the anti-doppelganger as a young Donald Trump had any veracity, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, AND See B.S. would be throwing it gleefully in our faces 24/7/365.Blackvegetable » 15 Aug 2024, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑ What, exactly, is your theory here?
That a publication with a readership of 1.25 million, and a very deep pocketed owner, would appropriate the names of the archive and photographer, identify one of the subjects as the readily litigious Wee Donnie....and all affected parties just let it slide?
Is that it?
Cool opinion, eddie... I - and the President of the United States - happen to disagree with you.EDC4ALL! » 15 Aug 2024, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑ She was NOT qualified. She Proved that by failing her assignment, and accomplishing NOTHING, while over 92% of her staff has bailed.
SC is seeking redemption for the many occasions on which he undermined traditional marriage.maineman » 15 Aug 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑ I think it is incredibly dishonest of you to suggest that recognizing the existence of transgender individuals and making some accommodations for them is tantamount to "removing every protection women have from the statistically undeniable propensity of men to commit sexual violence against them." Talk about a **** DRAMA queen!
Tell me how letting a transgender person who identifies as a female use a women's restroom somehow magically removes the protection women have from being date raped by heterosexual acquaintances... somehow removes the protection women have from being sexually assaulted by their father or their brother?
That's truly compelling logic.Cannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑ My theory - and buckle up, buttercup - is that if the silly caption identifying the anti-doppelganger as a young Donald Trump had any veracity, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, AND See B.S. would be throwing it gleefully in our faces 24/7/365.
That photo is so manifestly NOT DJT that if a thousand people were axed in the blind to identify Cohen's capon, not one (1) person would suggest the Pride of Wharton. Not ONE, including you.
But you were fed, and you will spew.
And she persists.maineman » 15 Aug 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑ I think it is incredibly dishonest of you to suggest that recognizing the existence of transgender individuals and making some accommodations for them is tantamount to "removing every protection women have from the statistically undeniable propensity of men to commit sexual violence against them." Talk about a **** DRAMA queen!
Tell me how letting a transgender person who identifies as a female use a women's restroom
Thank you - but the fact part was the most interesting. The logic party was just the cherry on the sundae.
Now, now, Pride of Brown.Blackvegetable » 15 Aug 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑ You do no such thing, SC...
Your shame is indelible.
Cannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑ And she persists.
Where trannies tinkle is not the issue, fruity.
Forcing women to accept them as cell mates and boxing opponents is a far cry from letting them tinkle in the next stall, committed fabricator.
lol your opinionCannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑ Killing roe was the mechanism by which the issue was rightly returned to the states.
Not at all.
The question at the end was:maineman » 15 Aug 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑ And typically, you dodged the tough question at the end, which only served to highlight the hysteria of your prior post.
You certainly are a cowardly cocksucker, that's for sure.
What "fact part"?Cannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑ Thank you - but the fact part was the most interesting. The logic party was just the cherry on the sundae.
NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
Blackvegetable » 15 Aug 2024, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑ What, exactly, is your theory here?
That a publication with a readership of 1.25 million, and a very deep pocketed owner, would appropriate the names of the archive and photographer, identify one of the subjects as the readily litigious Wee Donnie....and all affected parties just let it slide?
Is that it?
You must have taken a closer lookCannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑ NO QUESTIONS, DICK SUCKER!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/be/10/d3 ... fb8c8a.gif
That MUST be it, question boi.
@Cannonpointermaineman » 15 Aug 2024, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑ I think it is incredibly dishonest of you to suggest that recognizing the existence of transgender individuals and making some accommodations for them is tantamount to "removing every protection women have from the statistically undeniable propensity of men to commit sexual violence against them." Talk about a **** DRAMA queen!
Tell me how letting a transgender person who identifies as a female use a women's restroom somehow magically removes the protection women have from being date raped by heterosexual acquaintances... somehow removes the protection women have from being sexually assaulted by their father or their brother?
"They just wanna TINKLE! WAAAAHHH!!!!"maineman » 15 Aug 2024, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑ And typically, you dodged the tough question at the end, which only served to highlight the hysteria of your prior post.
You certainly are a cowardly cocksucker, that's for sure.
Cannonpointer » 15 Aug 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑ "They just wanna TINKLE! WAAAAHHH!!!!"
In April 2023, Walz signed a law that turned Minnesota into a "transgender sanctuary state." House File 146 "prevents state courts or officials from complying with child removal requests, extraditions, arrests, or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care that a person receives in Minnesota." This gave state courts the power to take kids away if parents don't sign off on so-called "gender-affirming" surgical procedures, allowing the state to have temporary emergency jurisdiction over the child.
"They just wanna TINKLE! WAAAAHHH!!!!"
Your "question" (lie with a question mark) was utterly refuted. This is not about tinkling, Britney.