Belezabro
Elite
Just came to post. One of the few, brave conservative actors.
-
In Memory of Rebarcock.
As we navigate life without Pat 'Rebarcock.' Flood, who passed on Sept 21, 2025, we continue to remember the profound impact he had on our community. His support was a cornerstone for our forum. We encourage you to visit the memorial thread to share your memories and condolences. In honor of Pat’s love for storytelling, please contribute to his ‘Rebarcock tells a story’ thread. Your stories will help keep his spirit alive among us.
Master Thread Dance Your Cares Away/Fraggle/Law Abiding Citizens
- Thread starter Bryan74b
- Start date
Master Threads
Just came to post. One of the few, brave conservative actors.
The corruption in that building was impressive
Remember British doctors found nano plastic particles in the lungs of people undergoing lung surgery. They had been vaxxed too.
FreeMiner
Legendary
Clean out the tyrants.
The unvaxxed have lined up to donate blood freely.
www.zerohedge.com
The unvaxxed have lined up to donate blood freely.
"That Is Where Tyranny Starts": New Zealand May Take Baby From Parents Demanding 'Unvaccinated' Blood For Heart Surgery | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
ShaolinNole
Legendary
Touro University gives honorary doctorate to Pfizer CEO, but is one of the very few universities in NY that don’t require vaccines. They are all just rubbing our faces in their corruption while laughing at us.
www.touro.edu
Touro Celebrates Its 50th Anniversary and Groundbreaking Achievement with Gala and Convocation
Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla Will Receive Honorary Doctorate
FreeMiner
Legendary
Nancy not happy ha ha ha
Supreme Court declines to take up 2020 case against Dominion, Facebook
The Supreme Court on Monday chose not to take a case brought against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook by voters who claimed that the two companies illegally influenced the 2020 election. Kevin …
thehill.com
No reason given could it be.............
Federal law generally prohibits disenfranchisement of people based on race, age, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation and disability, along with other categories.
Federal law does not prohibit disenfranchisement based on ideology, political affiliation or outlook. If a state or local election system wants to block voters based on affiliation or ideology, they can…. as long as it doesn’t have a disparate impact on the protected category.
If a state legislature wanted to assign 1/2 value to each Republican vote, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that rule.
If a state election outcome results in the loss of 50% of the republican votes in the local or state election, there is nothing in the federal law that would correct the issue. The state is responsible for certifying the results.
The supreme court will not hear an election controversy issue or legal challenge based on certified results from states. The constitution permits states to conduct their own elections, and as long as federal laws are not violated, the state certification ends the discussion. This is the great dichotomy within U.S. election around election manipulation by a state or local election officials. There is no federal recourse if no federally protected category was adversely impacted.
The DNC argues election disenfranchisement, rules, dates, times, locations, etc based entirely on protected federal categories, ie. the date or method of the election has an adverse impact to a specifically protected category of racial minorities. This is the typical DNC lawsuit.
Federal law does not prohibit disenfranchisement based on ideology, political affiliation or outlook. If a state or local election system wants to block voters based on affiliation or ideology, they can…. as long as it doesn’t have a disparate impact on the protected category.
If a state legislature wanted to assign 1/2 value to each Republican vote, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that rule.
If a state election outcome results in the loss of 50% of the republican votes in the local or state election, there is nothing in the federal law that would correct the issue. The state is responsible for certifying the results.
The supreme court will not hear an election controversy issue or legal challenge based on certified results from states. The constitution permits states to conduct their own elections, and as long as federal laws are not violated, the state certification ends the discussion. This is the great dichotomy within U.S. election around election manipulation by a state or local election officials. There is no federal recourse if no federally protected category was adversely impacted.
The DNC argues election disenfranchisement, rules, dates, times, locations, etc based entirely on protected federal categories, ie. the date or method of the election has an adverse impact to a specifically protected category of racial minorities. This is the typical DNC lawsuit.
Hair lips? Seriously? @FreeMiner
I was born with a cleft lip- you couldn’t tell now after multiple surgeries.,
Supreme Court declines to take up 2020 case against Dominion, Facebook
The Supreme Court on Monday chose not to take a case brought against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook by voters who claimed that the two companies illegally influenced the 2020 election. Kevin …
No reason given could it be.............
View attachment 153573
View attachment 153574
Dismissed because,,,,,wait for it,
no standing.
The turtle ain’t in charge. His strings are pulled too. Fuck em.
He didn’t mean anything by it.
Maybe so. All good. I’m going to take a break from the thread.
One thing that gets discussed I want to point out- I don’t think Gates and Bezos are buying up land for soy farms- they want carbon credits.
Merry Christmas to everyone
Sue them and use the same arguments the woke are using against bakers etc.
And Kansas girl.
FreeMiner
Legendary
The Cabal has the dirt on him. Most of these people are compromised.Supreme Court declines to take up 2020 case against Dominion, Facebook
The Supreme Court on Monday chose not to take a case brought against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook by voters who claimed that the two companies illegally influenced the 2020 election. Kevin …
No reason given could it be.............
View attachment 153573
View attachment 153574
Similar threads
