Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.
Neither was Selene Walters, who was raped by Ronald Reagan.
Funny you folks never ever bring that up.
You're going to have to walk me through your logic.
Democrats who are silent on liberal sex crimes are all indignant about Ted Nugent.
I pointed out the double standard.
How does Selene Walters make you not a flaming hypocrite, which was my point?
Reading is fundamental
What do you mean?
Damn, explaining the obvious to liberals is a full time job.
Your question didn't logically refute what I said. Here's a hint. I put the quotes in red for you...
That you don't care when leftists commit sex crimes
Stupid liberal tricks.
1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.
2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.
3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.
My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidenceless Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?
Eyah..
Yes swallow, for Republicans no explanation is good enough. For Democrats, no explanation is required. Darn it, they are just good people, we can trust them. Implicitly. Which is the only way BTW we can because once we start asking questions...
Ted Nugent On Running For President: 'Sure, Why Not?'
Oh goody goody!!!"At this point it would be up to Mrs. Nugent and my family. I would consult with my manager... but I'm being pushed pretty hard to run for public office and I believe my sense of logic, my sense of common sense, my connection to people who are in the asset column of America ... I believe that I would perform an enormous upgrade in returning to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and most important of all: accountability."
When asked if that answer was meant to be taken as confirmation that Nugent could see himself running for president, the singer simply replied, "That would be a, 'Sure, why not?'"
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
Skippy? You calling me peanut butter?Can you find one post where I have supported a sex offender?
Reading is fundamental
What do you mean?
What's more, People magazine got Walters to repeat the story almost verbatim. Walters denied one key element of Kelley's version to People--that Reagan forced his way into her apartment--but reaffirmed the rest. It sounds remarkably like Juanita Broaddrick's story:
"I opened the door," Walters told the magazine. "Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's [Kelley's] phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him."
Walters--like Broaddrick--did not file charges. And Kelley maintains that Walters shared contemporaneous accounts of the encounter with friends.
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
Reading is fundamental
What do you mean?
Clinton supporters......
Think about it.
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.
The problem with Luddly's threads is that while they are both original and smart, the part that is original isn't smart, and the part that is smart, isn't original.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
It's just over your head. I can't help you there shitstain.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.
You don't know the difference between first acknowledging something, then not acknowledging something?
That's called a "contradiction".
Like if I said, I have a brown dog, except he's not brown.
I just contradicted myself.
If you need anymore examples..let me know.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.
The good thing about morons like Sallow is that they are walking contradictions to their own claims of the superiority of Democrat intelligence
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
It's just over your head. I can't help you there shitstain.
Naw it isn't.
And that's not a glow we see in your ear..it's the light coming from the other end.
It's just over your head. I can't help you there shitstain.
Naw it isn't.
And that's not a glow we see in your ear..it's the light coming from the other end.
Read it again nit wit, there is no contradiction dumbass.
The problem with this post is that it fails because:
A. It contradicts itself.
B. See A.
A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.
You don't know the difference between first acknowledging something, then not acknowledging something?
That's called a "contradiction".
Like if I said, I have a brown dog, except he's not brown.
I just contradicted myself.
If you need anymore examples..let me know.
