Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:there is no comedic line too far if the target of the joke worked with an outside government to undermine the US electorate system, or is willing to defend those people with lies and half-truths, IMO.

Maybe?

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/60683445 ... t-d-c-gala

Sorry, not sold. Regardless of how funny she may or may not have been, it's not her job to "advance journalism" (as one person was quoted in the article), nor to take even shots at both sides. I get the sense she was trying to tap into the seething anger the left is feeling towards the right. If that backfires on the left, so be it. But she should have the right to crack any jokes she wants.

Here’s Obama kicking trump squarely in the nuts at that bullshit dinner. But..

Guys relax it was just locker room talk.

This is what I was trying to say earlier:

tragabigzanda wrote:This is what I was trying to say earlier:

yup

That tweet is the funniest joke on this page.

tragabigzanda wrote:This is what I was trying to say earlier:

What does that even mean? Who is that suppose to be talking about?

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:This is what I was trying to say earlier:

What does that even mean? Who is that suppose to be talking about?

"many in media"

The everpresent basis for practically all their commentary involves overcompensation towards considering LGBT and non-white people's opinion about Trump's policies *.

*excluding FOXnews of course

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:This is what I was trying to say earlier:

What does that even mean? Who is that suppose to be talking about?

"many in media"

Many in the media what?

BurtReynolds wrote:The everpresent basis for practically all their commentary involves overcompensation towards considering LGBT and non-white people's opinion about Trump's policies *.

*excluding FOXnews of course

this plays great if you imagine it like the breakdown in GnR's "Civil War."

BurtReynolds wrote:The everpresent basis for practically all their commentary involves overcompensation towards considering LGBT and non-white people's opinion about Trump's policies *.

*excluding FOXnews of course

How does a president pass a national law that does not affect black, brown, or LGBTQ people? That’s around half of the population. And who is this mass of people in the media that doesn’t take Trump to task over his bigotry? And why does that mean it’s not right to complain about a person being treated like that?

BurtReynolds wrote:Nobel Peace prize when?

we know who really made this happen

Spoiler: show

Bunch of snow flakes.

I don't know what I find more exhausting, conservatives' reaction to the dinner or the response to the reaction.

Monkey_Driven wrote:I don't know what I find more exhausting, conservatives' reaction to the dinner or the response to the reaction.

It's all pathetic.

jwfocker wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:I don't know what I find more exhausting, conservatives' reaction to the dinner or the response to the reaction.

It's all pathetic.

Trump has truly set a low for dialogue in the country.

‘Murica..you in danger gurl

Read plz

Every piece since Mueller's questions were leaked yesterday re-ups the legal opinion that a sitting POTUS can't be charged with a felony. But I have yet to see any further info on if there were any reason he couldn't be charged after he were impeached/his term ended. Seems obvious that he could be, but just curious if maybe I've missed something?