Given the fact only about 47% of American adults now claim any kind of religious affiliation, and that there are more atheists than Jews, all political parties had better start paying attention. The religious right has gotten far too much favor for far too long. They should have never gotten any attention, because they are the people who would use the power of government to force their beliefs on others. If they want to play politics, then they can start paying taxes.
Why would they need to start paying attention? They ignore the will of the people on all kinds of issues. The majority of Americans want to see Medicare for All, yet both parties in congress remain opposed to it. A considerable majority of the people support a woman's right to bodily autonomy, yet... A majority favor equal rights for LGBT Americans, yet... Most people favor free higher education, but... And on and on.
I'd be interested to see a set of valid polls on the proportion of atheists (and wannabes) who actually vote in federal, state and local elections. Does atheism conflate with apathy or activism?
"No, no, no. You guys don't understand that 'religious freedom' means that we religious are free to do whatever we want and you guys have to obey otherwise you're oppressing us!"
The blunt fact is that if any political party wants to serve ALL people, including those with religious beliefs as well as those with NO religious beliefs, their first priority must be NOT to push their own personal beliefs onto others! I've said it multiple times: any governmental employee, from the cop walking a beat to the president, has an obligation solely to the law and NOT to their own personal beliefs, however closely or sincerely held they may be. The Democrats at least attempt to recognize this. The Republicans, with damned few exceptions, have utterly sold out to the Religious Reich and indeed, make no secret that they have.
In that regard, the United States has one political party and one religious cabal, and that desperately needs to change!
The blunt fact is that political parties don't want to serve all people - at least, that's not their primary focus. Their primary focus is winning elections. Policy and issues are secondary. As evidence, consider that they regularly shift their issue positions in order to better try to win.
This blunt fact leads to the other blunt fact that they will always cater to voters more than nonvoters. So vote. Particularly in primaries and local elections where your vote is most impactful and where you are going to be much more comfortable voting for the 'ideal on issues long shot' over the 'can beat the GOP meh.'
OT 11,000-year-old statue of giant man clutching penis unearthed in Turkey. Alahu Akbar? Oh well, there goes the 6,000 year old planet belief plus most of the Family Values for Christianity.
You're supposed to seek medical care if you have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours. This dude's been up for 11,000 years. Longer than anything found in the bible.
On a visit to the zoo once I saw a young rhesus monkey cheerfully masturbating. I kept waiting for one of the other monkeys to tell him it was a sin, but it never happened.
Actually on that same zoo visit I saw a male bat eagerly licking the junk of another male, who sure seemed to be enjoying it. Horrified parents were rushing their children away from the "twilight" exhibit. And some of the kids were fighting like hell to stay and watch. The zoo can be so educational.
Each and every atom--and each and every proton, neutron, electron and the forces that hold them together-- behaves according to God's will. Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and ubiquitous. No fallacy there...
Ever see Flesh Gordon? Dr. Flex Jerkoff's space ship is literally a giant penis. (Later in the movie, the hero fights the ferocious penisaurus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe5TlVduvY)
Nice to see people who don't like to pretend men don't have penises. (Seriously, the human figures you get with Daz Studio 3d software, the genitals are an add-on, and none of the pants fit over them)
Ah, thanks. The cathars should be a shining example to use when warning against a theocracy. Not that they'll take the slightest bit of notice until they're all burning at the stake.
There is another. 4th crusade (1204), from 9th to 13th April crusaders attaqued and pillaged a famous Muslim city, Constantinople, pearl of the Byzantine Empire 🙄
It was also on lands that belonged to First Peoples/Native Americans until said lands were stolen. The Native American Caucus meeting began with a Land Acknowledgment statement.
Democrats also need to take back the "Pro-life" descriptor (pro-choice, pro-women, pro-LGBTQIA+, pro-sensible gun legislation, anti-death penalty and so on).
Pro-choice IS pro life. It is about an individual's freedom to choose what their own life will be. "Pro-life" is only about controlling others and forcing them to conform to one narrow interpretation of morality that has been twisted into evil by that very desire to control.
Democrats need to lure away some of the PR firms Republicans are using. I hate to say it, but until things stabilize, I think they should also give up on these 'grassroots' funding campaigns. They never reach the apathetic or the undecided (if they actually exist) with their limited funds. I think I'd rather have someone who'll throw Bezos a bone once in a while than someone who yells 'I'm a patriot' while trying to destroy democracy.
The Dem and GOP run essentially indistinguishable attack ads in my neck of the woods. Same basic PR concepts in both cases. The "I'm XYZ and I'm running for..." ads tend to be a bit more varied in terms of PR skill and style, but I don't think the Dem ones are particularly PR-professionally worse. It varies more by individual (and probably has more to do with spending on that commercial than PR firm).
I'd say neither are particularly good at wooing smart but undecided voters, because they are so obviously, transparently partisan and lop-sided that neither party and neither pro- or con- ads can be relied upon to give the viewer a trustworthy view of either (a) the opposing candidates' positions or (b) where that candidate stands on anything divisive or controversial.
I think the print press does a much better job of tackling that part of the problem with candidate surveys about issues. If I had by druthers, I'd like to see some way to get nonpartisan survey answers to the top 5 or 10 local concerns into commercial form.
"Smart undecided voter" is quickly becoming an oxymoron. At this point, I'd wager nearly all undecided voters fall into one of three categories: stupid, apathetic, or ignorant- and the first two might as well be one and the same; anyone who can look at the current state of politics in this country and just not care is not a person I'd credit with an overabundance of mental acuity.
I can agree with the last part, but Republicans in speeches (not 30 second commercials) have much better formed phrasing of their talking points. They use a concise phrase for their talking point (usually a lie) and repeat it ad infinitum. Democrats are all over the place and can't stick to a consistent, short message. I mean the best phrase the left could come up with to describe the problems with policing in this country is the easily misunderstood 'Defund the Police'. Any halfway decent PR person could have told them that would go over like a lead balloon.
I can't think of the last time I watched a republican speech. Or a dem speech, for that matter. I expect I'll watch the dem debates leading up to the 2028 elections, but that's the next time I envision doing it. Such speeches are so content-poor they frustrate me to watch. Both because they are a set of repetitive talking points I could read in 30 seconds, and because - like the ads - they studiously avoid talking about the candidate's positions on controversial or divisive issues.
And this is just my opinion, but you are whitewashing the 'defund the police' movement. The progessives who came up with that idea weren't searching for some higher concept and came up with that slogan as a poorly worded way of saying it. They came up with that slogan because they literally wanted to take much of the funding from police and shift it to other uses, such as social services. The slogan very accurately describes a [but not "the"] position on the left. For sure, some slogan like "equal justice under law" or "equal policing under law" probably captures the more moderate-liberal position better and certainly would've gone over better with most of the public, but the folks who came up with 'defund the police' were not moderate-liberals, and keeping police funding the same or raising it while ensuring it was spent on more equitable law enforcement was not their goal. My guess is that they would've likened such a position to rearranging the chairs on the titanic.
But it didn't convey the fact that they wanted to shift the funding and responsibilities to other, better suited agencies. It conveyed the impression they were in favor of anarchy.
If nothing else, her action should 1) start a deeper discussion about abortion and 2) maybe help clear up some misconceptions, as was the case in her talks with Burkhart (who seemed to be pretty clueless, based on the article!).
Same state with mandatory In God We Trust license plates (some of which are made by inmates in jail for abetting travel to an abortion in another state).
The zeal to vote, a great phrase. One that can be ambiguous because in this day in age language is fraught with ambiguity, used to conceal rather than reveal, very literally used as a weapon against persons or movements. Zeal by definition means partisanship. But going deeper, I think zeal reveals something that most voters off the conservative bloc dont think of, deny, or rather not countenance as a possibility - fear. The enthusiasm of the conservative bloc, the evangelical bloc, and the supremacist bloc is driven by the fear that they will be washed away if they don't act. Nothing could be further than the truth, evidenced by the lackadaisical approach most other blocs use in voting. It's a live and let live mentality that wrongly is ascribed to others, that if I treat you fairly, you'll treat me fairly.
But that's not the starting point - the starting point for the conservative bloc is one of hierarchy, authority, power, and control. Whether from an imaginary being, law, culture, or even hoax, their starting point is corrupt. Any argument following might be sensical, but it itself is corrupt.
C'est-à-dire, vote like you mean it, otherwise it's meaningless.
They are the party of “might equals right” and White Evangelical Christians just happen to be one of the more radicalized religious sects that align with extremism and the general body of beliefs that come with it. In practice, it’s no different than the Taliban. Same oppression, same approach and goal, different name. Republicans market themselves as radically, morally superior. Without that branding, their supporters might be forced to actually process how immoral their policies are.
The same coin shot by a cannon at you. Sometimes it's a hot load and sometimes it's just a puff of smoke. Don't be fooled, there's somebody loading a cannon and pointing it at you!
Fair enough, but we shouldn't exactly take Hamas's denial at their word, either. A horrific tragedy no matte who is responsible. May all the lives of the people who were killed RIP.
Nice to see that she mentioned reproductive rights in that. I'm surprised that the Democrats aren't hammering it a little more given that it seems to me to be a bit of a vote winner. More than some vague stuff about religious freedom anyway.
Definitely a man who needs a visit from the fashion fairies. Of course, I can't imagine any self-respecting fairy going near him without a cast iron frying pan.
Darn, I missed that meeting...there were so many things going on all at once. Wish I had known about that before the event....what list do I need to get on?
Given the fact only about 47% of American adults now claim any kind of religious affiliation, and that there are more atheists than Jews, all political parties had better start paying attention. The religious right has gotten far too much favor for far too long. They should have never gotten any attention, because they are the people who would use the power of government to force their beliefs on others. If they want to play politics, then they can start paying taxes.
What's scary is that many of them vote the way their pastor tells them to.
I suppose it's yet another way they conserve energy by not having to think for themselves.
I try not to delegate my thinking to anyone, let alone a preacher.
Why would they need to start paying attention? They ignore the will of the people on all kinds of issues. The majority of Americans want to see Medicare for All, yet both parties in congress remain opposed to it. A considerable majority of the people support a woman's right to bodily autonomy, yet... A majority favor equal rights for LGBT Americans, yet... Most people favor free higher education, but... And on and on.
I'd be interested to see a set of valid polls on the proportion of atheists (and wannabes) who actually vote in federal, state and local elections. Does atheism conflate with apathy or activism?
"No, no, no. You guys don't understand that 'religious freedom' means that we religious are free to do whatever we want and you guys have to obey otherwise you're oppressing us!"
The blunt fact is that if any political party wants to serve ALL people, including those with religious beliefs as well as those with NO religious beliefs, their first priority must be NOT to push their own personal beliefs onto others! I've said it multiple times: any governmental employee, from the cop walking a beat to the president, has an obligation solely to the law and NOT to their own personal beliefs, however closely or sincerely held they may be. The Democrats at least attempt to recognize this. The Republicans, with damned few exceptions, have utterly sold out to the Religious Reich and indeed, make no secret that they have.
In that regard, the United States has one political party and one religious cabal, and that desperately needs to change!
[their first priority must be NOT to push their own personal beliefs onto others!]
Phppt. What's the point of even HAVING a religion if I don't get to boss other people around?
The blunt fact is that political parties don't want to serve all people - at least, that's not their primary focus. Their primary focus is winning elections. Policy and issues are secondary. As evidence, consider that they regularly shift their issue positions in order to better try to win.
This blunt fact leads to the other blunt fact that they will always cater to voters more than nonvoters. So vote. Particularly in primaries and local elections where your vote is most impactful and where you are going to be much more comfortable voting for the 'ideal on issues long shot' over the 'can beat the GOP meh.'
OT 11,000-year-old statue of giant man clutching penis unearthed in Turkey. Alahu Akbar? Oh well, there goes the 6,000 year old planet belief plus most of the Family Values for Christianity.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/11000-year-old-statue-of-giant-man-clutching-penis-unearthed-in-turkey
Talk about being rock-hard.
You're supposed to seek medical care if you have an erection that lasts more than 4 hours. This dude's been up for 11,000 years. Longer than anything found in the bible.
Imagine modeling for that. Are we sure Fluffer isn't the oldest profession?
Is the My Pillow guy a fluffer?
If you want him sucking on your cock, be my guest. But I wouldn't let him within 1/2 mile of mine.
That near?! You're courageous!
He took viagranite.
The same stuff Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble took?
The original Flintstone vitamins.
Bet they weren't chewables.
Depends on how much you like your teeth.
Let's not take anything for granite.
Gneiss one.
I coquina.
Nowhere does it say the penis was erect. Al Bundy used to hold his all the time pretty much whenever he didn't have anything to do with that hand.
As I look at it, he seems to have a quite literal stiffy. :)
Of all the moments for the wizard to turn you to stone, right on the edge for 11,000 years.
Brings to mind the ancient warning: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Maybe it's a loaf of bread.
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/5a8e8105da74979c9872ad3febedb42e
Awk-warrrd.
Beats viagra.
Or an inserted stone dildo/butt plug.
"stone dildo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hByGwgm_vRs
Stone Cold...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8L08usJueE
"Stunning!" 😄
Well, that was a most unsatisfying photo. Only from the waist up?
Well there we have it, folks- evidence that masturbation is humanity's oldest hobby.
On a visit to the zoo once I saw a young rhesus monkey cheerfully masturbating. I kept waiting for one of the other monkeys to tell him it was a sin, but it never happened.
Most definitely NSFW!
https://nypost.com/2021/09/23/gorillas-shock-onlookers-with-oral-sex-at-bronx-zoo-video/
Actually on that same zoo visit I saw a male bat eagerly licking the junk of another male, who sure seemed to be enjoying it. Horrified parents were rushing their children away from the "twilight" exhibit. And some of the kids were fighting like hell to stay and watch. The zoo can be so educational.
I'll say it's educational. There's one vid of an ape on its back urinating in its own mouth. The kids squealed with delight. 😃
Our ancestors were some sick puppies.
Depends. Did his left hand pay his right hand?
Not-so-original sin?
"Carbon dating is unreliable. It can't be 11,000 years old. That's a lie from the Father of Lies."
Each and every atom--and each and every proton, neutron, electron and the forces that hold them together-- behaves according to God's will. Because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and ubiquitous. No fallacy there...
That's really quarky.
I've never dated carbon. Is it an expensive date? Does it order the priciest thing on the menu? And does it fuck on the first date?
Depends on if it's a stable or unstable isotope.
depends how fuckable you are. And whether you get to a second date.
With the right crystal structure, carbon can end up fairly expensive, yes.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP._LwaUcqC6xlfNqzfV05MogHaD7%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=6004241d9c430bc96a2a77a41aa7af95c8aeab57dd054d1fbdbcf3c177d2bc84&ipo=images
"Sniff".
Ever see Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin New Shepard rockets? Penis-shaped spacecraft.
Ever see Flesh Gordon? Dr. Flex Jerkoff's space ship is literally a giant penis. (Later in the movie, the hero fights the ferocious penisaurus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe5TlVduvY)
There's also this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1UwmgkKgI
I think it was in 'Spock's World' where a Vulcan made a comment about all the columns and domes in human architecture.
Nice to see people who don't like to pretend men don't have penises. (Seriously, the human figures you get with Daz Studio 3d software, the genitals are an add-on, and none of the pants fit over them)
I love the irony of a speech about religious freedom in a city named from a king who launched 2 crusades and persecuted French Cathars and Jews.
Hey, it was the Church that canonized him.
I don't care what he did, nobody deserves to be shot out of a cannon. : )
What about ghouliani ?
Exhibit one for the con position: Donald J Trump.
Almost nobody.
No safety net at the other end, either.
After his death. He was not coerced.
You realize you're probably the only one that knows that. Okay, there might be a half-dozen U.S. Historians that know where the name came from.
That's what you get for not studying European history 😁
European is histr'y is furrin.' We only carez 'bout 'Murican histr'y. ;)
White 'We were helping them blacks and Indians','states' rights' 'Murican history.
Only America matters, silly. Europe only exists to give people someplace to wait till the New Jerusalem was discovered.
I thought it was Canada.
Okay it's roughly 6 o'clock in the morning and I read the damn thing twice – what city are we talking about here?
St. Louis, Misery.
Ah, thanks. The cathars should be a shining example to use when warning against a theocracy. Not that they'll take the slightest bit of notice until they're all burning at the stake.
There is another. 4th crusade (1204), from 9th to 13th April crusaders attaqued and pillaged a famous Muslim city, Constantinople, pearl of the Byzantine Empire 🙄
Constantinople? Not Istanbul?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0X77OBJUg
Yep, Istanbul was it's name after 1453, Byzance Empire defeated by Turks.
The part about Istanbul being a Muslim city is sarcasm.
From this link:
https://www.secularstrategies.com/religious-freedom-a-core-democratic-value/
". . . at the DNC’s meeting in St. Louis, Missouri."
It was also on lands that belonged to First Peoples/Native Americans until said lands were stolen. The Native American Caucus meeting began with a Land Acknowledgment statement.
Democrats also need to take back the "Pro-life" descriptor (pro-choice, pro-women, pro-LGBTQIA+, pro-sensible gun legislation, anti-death penalty and so on).
Pro-choice IS pro life. It is about an individual's freedom to choose what their own life will be. "Pro-life" is only about controlling others and forcing them to conform to one narrow interpretation of morality that has been twisted into evil by that very desire to control.
I should've added pro-healthcare for all, as well.
Friggin' commie with your government healthcare. Now you want everyone to wait 12 hours, bleeding, in the ER like they do over in godless Europe.
/s just in case a newbie thinks I'm serious.
You are wrong we wait 72 hours, not 12.
I'm living proof that government-run healthcare is a lifesaver. Without it, I'd be blind or dead. Socialism rocks!
Democrats need to lure away some of the PR firms Republicans are using. I hate to say it, but until things stabilize, I think they should also give up on these 'grassroots' funding campaigns. They never reach the apathetic or the undecided (if they actually exist) with their limited funds. I think I'd rather have someone who'll throw Bezos a bone once in a while than someone who yells 'I'm a patriot' while trying to destroy democracy.
The Dem and GOP run essentially indistinguishable attack ads in my neck of the woods. Same basic PR concepts in both cases. The "I'm XYZ and I'm running for..." ads tend to be a bit more varied in terms of PR skill and style, but I don't think the Dem ones are particularly PR-professionally worse. It varies more by individual (and probably has more to do with spending on that commercial than PR firm).
I'd say neither are particularly good at wooing smart but undecided voters, because they are so obviously, transparently partisan and lop-sided that neither party and neither pro- or con- ads can be relied upon to give the viewer a trustworthy view of either (a) the opposing candidates' positions or (b) where that candidate stands on anything divisive or controversial.
I think the print press does a much better job of tackling that part of the problem with candidate surveys about issues. If I had by druthers, I'd like to see some way to get nonpartisan survey answers to the top 5 or 10 local concerns into commercial form.
"Smart undecided voter" is quickly becoming an oxymoron. At this point, I'd wager nearly all undecided voters fall into one of three categories: stupid, apathetic, or ignorant- and the first two might as well be one and the same; anyone who can look at the current state of politics in this country and just not care is not a person I'd credit with an overabundance of mental acuity.
I can agree with the last part, but Republicans in speeches (not 30 second commercials) have much better formed phrasing of their talking points. They use a concise phrase for their talking point (usually a lie) and repeat it ad infinitum. Democrats are all over the place and can't stick to a consistent, short message. I mean the best phrase the left could come up with to describe the problems with policing in this country is the easily misunderstood 'Defund the Police'. Any halfway decent PR person could have told them that would go over like a lead balloon.
I can't think of the last time I watched a republican speech. Or a dem speech, for that matter. I expect I'll watch the dem debates leading up to the 2028 elections, but that's the next time I envision doing it. Such speeches are so content-poor they frustrate me to watch. Both because they are a set of repetitive talking points I could read in 30 seconds, and because - like the ads - they studiously avoid talking about the candidate's positions on controversial or divisive issues.
And this is just my opinion, but you are whitewashing the 'defund the police' movement. The progessives who came up with that idea weren't searching for some higher concept and came up with that slogan as a poorly worded way of saying it. They came up with that slogan because they literally wanted to take much of the funding from police and shift it to other uses, such as social services. The slogan very accurately describes a [but not "the"] position on the left. For sure, some slogan like "equal justice under law" or "equal policing under law" probably captures the more moderate-liberal position better and certainly would've gone over better with most of the public, but the folks who came up with 'defund the police' were not moderate-liberals, and keeping police funding the same or raising it while ensuring it was spent on more equitable law enforcement was not their goal. My guess is that they would've likened such a position to rearranging the chairs on the titanic.
But it didn't convey the fact that they wanted to shift the funding and responsibilities to other, better suited agencies. It conveyed the impression they were in favor of anarchy.
Pathetic that most of the massive campaign war chests goes to wooing non-voters, apathetics, and "undecideds"--all truly low-information voters.
Also, remember it was Republicans, not Democrats, who wanted to ban ALL Muslims from entering the United States.
And it wasn't the Democrats complaining about the "blah people" from "shithole countries."
Trumpistan fits the bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/16/tennessee-abortion-ban-lawsuit-allie-phillips-representative
a very interesting read
She's fighting an uphill battle, but I wish her every success.
We went through a similar thing years ago, but it wasn't picked up that early. So we had a birth – damn near killed me.
Well yeah, delivering a baby without the benefit of a vagina, whoa!
If nothing else, her action should 1) start a deeper discussion about abortion and 2) maybe help clear up some misconceptions, as was the case in her talks with Burkhart (who seemed to be pretty clueless, based on the article!).
Intentionally clueless.
Too damned likely.
Same state with mandatory In God We Trust license plates (some of which are made by inmates in jail for abetting travel to an abortion in another state).
The zeal to vote, a great phrase. One that can be ambiguous because in this day in age language is fraught with ambiguity, used to conceal rather than reveal, very literally used as a weapon against persons or movements. Zeal by definition means partisanship. But going deeper, I think zeal reveals something that most voters off the conservative bloc dont think of, deny, or rather not countenance as a possibility - fear. The enthusiasm of the conservative bloc, the evangelical bloc, and the supremacist bloc is driven by the fear that they will be washed away if they don't act. Nothing could be further than the truth, evidenced by the lackadaisical approach most other blocs use in voting. It's a live and let live mentality that wrongly is ascribed to others, that if I treat you fairly, you'll treat me fairly.
But that's not the starting point - the starting point for the conservative bloc is one of hierarchy, authority, power, and control. Whether from an imaginary being, law, culture, or even hoax, their starting point is corrupt. Any argument following might be sensical, but it itself is corrupt.
C'est-à-dire, vote like you mean it, otherwise it's meaningless.
They are the party of “might equals right” and White Evangelical Christians just happen to be one of the more radicalized religious sects that align with extremism and the general body of beliefs that come with it. In practice, it’s no different than the Taliban. Same oppression, same approach and goal, different name. Republicans market themselves as radically, morally superior. Without that branding, their supporters might be forced to actually process how immoral their policies are.
White evilgelicals and the Taliban are two sides of the same coin.
The same coin shot by a cannon at you. Sometimes it's a hot load and sometimes it's just a puff of smoke. Don't be fooled, there's somebody loading a cannon and pointing it at you!
So a hospital in Gaza was hit by an air strike. At least 500 dead. Israel IMMEDIATELY goes “Not Me” and blames islamists.
This is my skeptical face.
This is my does it matter? face. Both sides are guilty of horrible things and the extremists on both sides refuse to even talk about a solution.
Jim Jordan blames Joe Biden for the attack.
That was actually Rashida Tlaib who did that (Not a joke. She did it on Twitter).
Alahu Akbar!
Gesundheit.
And Trump blamed the initial Hamas attack on the 2020 elections.
Because everything is about him always.
Both sides blame the other. Neither has clean hands.
It seems to me both are standing in blood up to their kneecaps.
Fair enough, but we shouldn't exactly take Hamas's denial at their word, either. A horrific tragedy no matte who is responsible. May all the lives of the people who were killed RIP.
*matter*
all the atheists I know are already democrats!
At the Veterans & Military Families Council meeting we did have a POW table. No Bible required. That's progress.
dncvmfc.org/POWTableAtDNCFall2023VMFC.jpg
All it needs now is a copy of the US Constitution. The document we swore to support and defend.
Yep. Good call. Will send it up.the chain.
Nice to see that she mentioned reproductive rights in that. I'm surprised that the Democrats aren't hammering it a little more given that it seems to me to be a bit of a vote winner. More than some vague stuff about religious freedom anyway.
They're too busy "reaching across the aisle" to do anything like that.
I'd like to see Democrats reach across the aisle...to slap the GQP silly.
I thought that was Boebert's specialty.
She'd pistol whip them if she could get away with it.
Maybe I'm thinking of a reach-around.
Wouldn't that be redundant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x49sHFMzpFc
Interesting.
hope "god" bring the t̶e̶n̶t̶ house down on pastor church again.
https://twitter.com/DarkElfZombie1/status/1713603431867302312
I'd like to see Locke get in the ring with Tammy Duckworth. She lost both her legs in the Iraq War.
She'd make him scream for his mommy.
If there is a god of good taste, that shirt makes Locke an atheist.
Definitely a man who needs a visit from the fashion fairies. Of course, I can't imagine any self-respecting fairy going near him without a cast iron frying pan.
https://www.zentaur.org/memes/frying_pan_who_knew.png
What a piece of 💩.
Darn, I missed that meeting...there were so many things going on all at once. Wish I had known about that before the event....what list do I need to get on?