I don't disagree but that's why we are building the movement up like a tree just like 47 always says.
We're going to build it with strong roots so it's unshakable.
-
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
We're going to build it with strong roots so it's unshakable.
Well Tejas should’ve just sent the NG in there and taken over the power plant. Fuk you DOE!
Grow a fukkin sack would ya!
Jtrain80
Legendary
Some posts deserve more than a like.
We will need to circle back on this one.
Pineapple
Legendary
Hahahahhahaha! I’m a very quiet, peaceful calm person. I’m sure you sensed it.
and, absolutely!!!
Just look at Florida. Broward county is always the last county to finish counting, even though several other Florida counties are a time zone behind. Not this past election though. All it takes is a strong state government and fair elections can happen and candidates who support what is best for their constituents can win.
Bruce Springsteen, Barack Obama launch podcast together
The podcast is part of Obama's exclusive production deal with Spotify.
These two twats calling themselves renegades, with their gated houses, bodyguards and fawning press.
Wood!
Help me out here. She wasn't behind bars to begin with?
Article didn’t say which wife?
Supposedly he had 5-10 wives just in the US.
he's got more than one, I'm sure
Moron. And they wonder why 47 is so popular.
Fuck yes!
I‘m sure this president over 120 years ago is still waiting for the states, congress, Supreme Court, or anyone to elect or amend the power back to the people.
Surely he understands why our government hasn’t destroyed it yet, 110 years later.
Now we’re getting somewhere, I bet he led those people back to freedom.
Gotta admit, he had no filter, was racist, sexist, and spoke his mind. Surely he was able to expose this cabal.
no doubt, he put up a good fight. if only his VP did the same.
You can’t fight evil with evil, you can’t fight insanity with insanity, and you can’t fight government with government. -jcoker01
laterallyshaking
Elite
"You could see it on his face--a president who is deeply and profoundly moved blah blah blah"
Barf
History repeats itself because we live in cycles...but, you know, hold the line.
Scartiger
Elite
Wood be your last piece.
Completely agree. That's why we aren't fighting government with government or relying on politicians to get our position across. Public opinion, information, and technology are the name of the game.
For the first time since 1776 you have We The People fighting the cabal instead of playing along with them via their fake constructs and manufactured problems.
Just because America 1st has taken over the GOP doesn't mean the movement begins or ends there (in government or politics).
The cabal has been desperate to see America destroy herself via armed revolution since We The People established our Manifest Destiny outside of their control. The cabal knows we are too powerful to conquer from the outside which is why they are always trying to get us to implode from within.
Damnit! I try very hard never to do that shit.Paging @M E R L I N party of one...your table is ready
I deserve the wizard and bleach
Disgonnabegud.gif
Dey scurrd.
More NYC and companies moving soon:
Removed as already posted.
Removed as already posted.
I posted this exact collage on Twitter. My account was suspended until it was removed because it violated their child exploitation policy.
Out@ABC
Just yanking your chain, hold the bleach (and the line)! Hope you guys are hanging in ok, all things considered.Damnit! I try very hard never to do that shit.
I deserve the wizard and bleach
Last edited:
If today doesn't serve as a wake up call to the last of the "plan" believers, I don't know what would.
The left knew what they were getting in ACB. It's why they didn't even bother fighting her nomination, contrary to the comical conservative narrative that she was unopposed because she was too smart for them.
Last edited:
I deserved it there.Just yanking your chain, hold the bleach! Hope you guys are hanging in ok, all things considered.
We're hanging in there. Weather broke here today and it got north of freezing so I decided more ice cream was the move tonight while we watch some Home Town.
I wish I could split a bottle with Big Ben one night after completing a reno with him.
Last edited:
Has Boeing’s computers been compromised?
I can’t help but wonder if BK and ACB have been threatened into silence. In fact, it seems very likely that is the case. They both have families with young children that they care about WAY more than the way the government is behaving. Knowing the bad guys could off one of your kids in a heartbeat would make anyone change their paradigm, IMO. That’s the way I’d see it if I was a Supreme Court justice. Fuck the evil mother fucking deep state devils. Fuck them straight to hell.
That OK. I’m starting to see a rat. Old farm boy in me...if you see one rat there are 50 more. Rivals tMB was one....
Bad form to quote yourself but we’re all on to it here. How long before more of the public catches on?? That’s where the precipice is.
Important to understand.
ONLY AT THE PRECIPICE [moment of destruction] WILL PEOPLE FIND THE WILL TO CHANGE.
Q
They need to stand the fuck up to these leftist fucks or move on. They are not doing their jobs and it’s helping in the destruction of this country. ACB has been absolutely worthless since the great Clarence Thomas swore her in. Can neither her or BK see the courage that the other conservative justices have? We all know Robert’s is a lost cause
MSM in all its glory... 
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a keynote speech during a dedication of Georgia new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Atlanta.
John Fritze
Mon, February 22, 2021, 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON – A blistering dissent in a high-profile election case written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas prompted blowback Monday from Democrats who accused one of the court's most conservative members of embracing baseless claims of voter fraud promoted by President Donald Trump after the November election.
In an 11-page dissent from the court's decision not to take up a challenge to the expanded use of mail ballots in Pennsylvania, Thomas acknowledged that the outcome of the election was not changed by the way votes were cast in the battleground state. But he raised questions about the reliability of mail-in voting that echoed many of the same arguments Trump raised in the weeks before and after the election.
Fact check: What's true about the 2020 election, vote counting, Electoral College
The dissent followed the court's decision Monday to turn away a challenge to accommodations the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court made for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic. The state, one of a handful of tossups that ultimately led to the election of President Joe Biden, allowed absentee ballots to be received up to three days after Election Day, even in cases where those ballots did not have a clear Nov. 3 postmark.
Scroll back up to restore default view.
In the end, despite the partisan rancor over the issue and a bevy of lawsuits, there were too few ballots at issue to make a difference in the outcome in the Keystone State. But Thomas and two other conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the legal questions should have been taken up by the high court to guide future elections.
"That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome," Thomas wrote. "But that may well not be the case in the future."
More: Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case questioning Pennsylvania ballots
But much of the pushback against Thomas was focused on another argument of his dissent in which he appeared to cast doubt on the reliability of mail-in ballots more broadly. Thomas pointed specifically to a case of fraud from the 1990s in a state Senate election in Philadelphia. In a footnote, he asserted that "an election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence."
"Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected," he wrote.
Critics said Thomas' argument played into an idea espoused by Trump and others that fraud could have existed, even though the former president did not ever prove it. Groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice have found voter fraud is exceedingly rare.
"None of us should be shocked that Justice Thomas would write an out of touch, radical & unhinged opinion," the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Jaime Harrison, tweeted. "He and his wife showed us who they were a very long time ago."
Harrison's response was in part a reference to a report this month that Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist and the justice's wife, apologized to her husband’s former law clerks for posting a series of messages supporting Trump's claims of fraud. Thomas has declined to comment on his wife's apology or her earlier pro-Trump statements.
More: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, apologizes for pro-Trump remarks
Trump's weekslong assault on the election results, which came without evidence of problems on a scale that could have changed the result, culminated in a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in which a mob of the president's supporters disrupted the counting of Electoral College votes. The riot resulted in five deaths and a second Trump impeachment.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a keynote speech during a dedication of Georgia new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Atlanta.
"You don’t have to be a prosecutor to understand how ludicrous Justice Thomas’ dissent is," tweeted Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., noting a conspiracy theory raised by some of Trump's attorneys that Venezuelan socialists hand a hand in helping Biden win.
"Fraud requires a perpetrator; that’s why Trump folks came up with Hugo Chavez," Lieu said. "Otherwise you’re saying over 7 million uncoordinated voters figured out how to commit voter fraud undetected."
Thomas, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, argued in his dissent that the questions raised in Pennsylvania should have been heard by the Supreme Court because they could come up again in future elections. Republicans say the extension for receiving mail-in ballots was never approved by the state legislature and was allowed by courts that relied on a vague provision of state law requiring elections to be "free and equal."
An evenly divided Supreme Court allowed the deadline extension to stand in October. At the time, the court still had a vacancy following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The tie meant the state court decision stood. Republicans returned to the court again days later – this time after Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee had been confirmed. But Barrett did not take part in the review, and the court denied a motion to expedite the case, noting that the election was at that point only days away.
Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a keynote speech during a dedication of Georgia new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Atlanta.
John Fritze
Mon, February 22, 2021, 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON – A blistering dissent in a high-profile election case written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas prompted blowback Monday from Democrats who accused one of the court's most conservative members of embracing baseless claims of voter fraud promoted by President Donald Trump after the November election.
In an 11-page dissent from the court's decision not to take up a challenge to the expanded use of mail ballots in Pennsylvania, Thomas acknowledged that the outcome of the election was not changed by the way votes were cast in the battleground state. But he raised questions about the reliability of mail-in voting that echoed many of the same arguments Trump raised in the weeks before and after the election.
Fact check: What's true about the 2020 election, vote counting, Electoral College
The dissent followed the court's decision Monday to turn away a challenge to accommodations the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court made for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic. The state, one of a handful of tossups that ultimately led to the election of President Joe Biden, allowed absentee ballots to be received up to three days after Election Day, even in cases where those ballots did not have a clear Nov. 3 postmark.
Scroll back up to restore default view.
In the end, despite the partisan rancor over the issue and a bevy of lawsuits, there were too few ballots at issue to make a difference in the outcome in the Keystone State. But Thomas and two other conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the legal questions should have been taken up by the high court to guide future elections.
"That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome," Thomas wrote. "But that may well not be the case in the future."
More: Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case questioning Pennsylvania ballots
But much of the pushback against Thomas was focused on another argument of his dissent in which he appeared to cast doubt on the reliability of mail-in ballots more broadly. Thomas pointed specifically to a case of fraud from the 1990s in a state Senate election in Philadelphia. In a footnote, he asserted that "an election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence."
"Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected," he wrote.
Critics said Thomas' argument played into an idea espoused by Trump and others that fraud could have existed, even though the former president did not ever prove it. Groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice have found voter fraud is exceedingly rare.
"None of us should be shocked that Justice Thomas would write an out of touch, radical & unhinged opinion," the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Jaime Harrison, tweeted. "He and his wife showed us who they were a very long time ago."
Harrison's response was in part a reference to a report this month that Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist and the justice's wife, apologized to her husband’s former law clerks for posting a series of messages supporting Trump's claims of fraud. Thomas has declined to comment on his wife's apology or her earlier pro-Trump statements.
More: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, apologizes for pro-Trump remarks
Trump's weekslong assault on the election results, which came without evidence of problems on a scale that could have changed the result, culminated in a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in which a mob of the president's supporters disrupted the counting of Electoral College votes. The riot resulted in five deaths and a second Trump impeachment.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivers a keynote speech during a dedication of Georgia new Nathan Deal Judicial Center Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, in Atlanta.
"You don’t have to be a prosecutor to understand how ludicrous Justice Thomas’ dissent is," tweeted Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., noting a conspiracy theory raised by some of Trump's attorneys that Venezuelan socialists hand a hand in helping Biden win.
"Fraud requires a perpetrator; that’s why Trump folks came up with Hugo Chavez," Lieu said. "Otherwise you’re saying over 7 million uncoordinated voters figured out how to commit voter fraud undetected."
Thomas, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, argued in his dissent that the questions raised in Pennsylvania should have been heard by the Supreme Court because they could come up again in future elections. Republicans say the extension for receiving mail-in ballots was never approved by the state legislature and was allowed by courts that relied on a vague provision of state law requiring elections to be "free and equal."
An evenly divided Supreme Court allowed the deadline extension to stand in October. At the time, the court still had a vacancy following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The tie meant the state court decision stood. Republicans returned to the court again days later – this time after Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee had been confirmed. But Barrett did not take part in the review, and the court denied a motion to expedite the case, noting that the election was at that point only days away.
Similar threads
