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.
Over the WH?We'll see if it's true if the Iranian flag is flying half mast in DC on Monday.
OBiden between the two makes it an Oreo.Does Twitter Think Today Is April Fool's Day?
Really, you think I'd follow any one of these gaggle of faggots????
View attachment 216728
“Why were we able to livestream the moon landing in 1969 but not in 2024?”
Callers asks NASA obvious question.
NASA answers are truly laughable:-
“Uh we had issues with file transfers”
“We had a number of communication glitches”
“It’s very difficult to transmit on ‘the fly’ if you will”
Think - all the advancements in technology over 55 years & they couldnt do it
Why do you think they didn’t stream the Artemis landing in 2024?i
Yep. Hildebitch showed her love for Sanger in Haiti.
Glad to help.
Muslims conquered Europe
All those Crusades just delayed the inevitable
When will people stop supporting the kNeeling Football League? Bread and circus! Skol!
inherently unreliable and no reasonable juror could believe any component of his testimony to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.This is not a new concept to trial lawyers. This kind of issue is presented in every case at the conclusion of the evidence when the attorneys -- particularly defense attorneys in criminal cases -- ask for "directed verdicts" or a "judgment of acquittal."You almost always lose that motion, but this case is different. The Govt has brought a case that RELIES on the truthfulness of the testimony of a particular witness who has made himself so entirely unreliable with his past conduct -- which he admits freely -- that it is impossible to separate fact from fiction in his recounting of events.It does not matter how much "corroboration" there is on OTHER parts -- if any part of his testimony is "I talked with Trump and we discussed XYZ", there is no corroboration for that. All the jury has is his version of that conversation and what Trump said or heard. His total lack of credibility makes that testimony unreliable in a criminal case where that element must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Now do what if we quit funding wars, NATO and the WHO all over this pathetic planet.
I guess the technology died about the time Stanley Kubrick did…
None from Kansas City, nor football fans I'll bet...