Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
The DUmpster / Re: You know who doesn't have a high security ballroom?
« Last post by SVPete on Today at 11:48:03 AM »
"Wasted" is not the way Russians would characterize the way Ukraine has used its 10s of billions of military aid - weapons and ordnance.
12
The United States gave "The" Ukraine over $125 billion. Had that corrupt clown leader not wasted it, he could have easily built a bunker.
13
The DUmpster / Re: You know who doesn't have a high security ballroom?
« Last post by CC27 on Today at 11:37:31 AM »
these people never ever have an original idea in their head:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2026/04/29/kinzinger-zelensky-hasnt-whined-about-needing-a-ballroom-to-feel-safe-1635553/

not even a bad one like this. Btw, here's the dummy (on the left):




https://www.facebook.com/jamiepgh

 :mental:

 :rotf:

YIKES
14
these people never ever have an original idea in their head:

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2026/04/29/kinzinger-zelensky-hasnt-whined-about-needing-a-ballroom-to-feel-safe-1635553/

not even a bad one like this. Btw, here's the dummy (on the left):




https://www.facebook.com/jamiepgh

 :mental:

 :rotf:
15
You missed a big one, Underpants.  Go back and read some more.

Three, that I know of, so far. Dems and Progs are having a Wednesday full of woe.
16
https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/jeffrey-harner_id_G-2254432095739619857

lol, that idiot "underpants" isn't going to have a dime left over after Abby finishes with him and his deep state wife. You need to get that straight.
17
The DUmpster / Re: You know who doesn't have a high security ballroom?
« Last post by SVPete on Today at 11:31:24 AM »
 :mental: Why does Buttoneer care that Zelensky's secure bunker does not have a fancy ballroom above it? :mental:
18
Breaking News / Supreme Court unanimously sides with pregnancy center
« Last post by SVPete on Today at 11:22:15 AM »
Supreme Court unanimously sides with pregnancy center

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/supreme-court-unanimously-sides-with-pregnancy-center/ar-AA221brx

Quote
(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, sided with a nonprofit pregnancy center in a federal lawsuit.

The case, First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport, focuses on a New Jersey pregnancy center that provides counseling and resources to pregnant women. In 2022, former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena seeking personal information of donors who contributed financially to the pregnancy center.

The attorney general accused First Choice of seeking to prevent people from accessing reproductive healthcare by providing "false or misleading" abortion information.

First Choice argued that it was unable to protect the anonymity of its donors if it provided their personally identifiable information. A lower court denied the pregnancy center's claim, on the basis that it did not display reasonable injury.

The justices on the Supreme Court sided with the pregnancy center, ruling that producing a list of clients violates the First Amendment.

"The attorney general's subpoena has caused First Choice to suffer ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's unanimous opinion.

Supreme Court lets faith-based pregnancy centers fight subpoena on First Amendment grounds

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-lets-faith-based-pregnancy-centers-fight-subpoena-on-first-amendment-grounds/ar-AA220OvM

Quote
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a group of faith-based “crisis pregnancy centers” in New Jersey to fight a subpoena from the state’s Democratic attorney general.

The decision may make it easier for liberal and conservative groups to challenge similar investigatory subpoenas.

At a time when red and blue states are often pursuing radically different policies on abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights, the religious nonprofit First Choice Women’s Resource Centers framed its inability to make its case in federal court as a threat to any group that could be targeted by state officials.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

“Since the 1950s, this court has confronted one official de­mand after another like the Attorney General’s,” Gorsuch wrote.

“Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these prece­dents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”

NJ's AG is trying to get the names, etc., of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers' donors. It does not take amazing awareness to realize: 1. The donor will get official and social harassment, the latter after their identities are, wink! wink!, leaked; 2. This will discourage potential donors, due to the prospect of official and social harassment.
19
The DUmpster / Re: You know who doesn't have a high security ballroom?
« Last post by zeitgeist on Today at 11:16:47 AM »
You know who else wanted ball room??  LBJ.  A lot of todays problems trace back to that SOB. 
20
BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Colorado 'Transgender' Therapy Ban, Faith-Based Ministries

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/04/29/breaking-scotus-rules-colorados-trans-kid-talk-therapy-ban-unconstitutional-n4952322

Quote
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a Colorado law preventing therapists from talking with children to help them reject transgender ideology, deeming such therapy protected speech under the Constitution.

Fox News chief legal correspondent Shannon Bream confirmed the court ruling in favor of helping children with gender dysphoria overcome that mental illness, an eight-to-one decision. Justice Ketanji Brien Jackson, arguably the biggest catastrophe ever to happen to the Supreme Court, was alone in claiming that preventing Colorado from demanding therapists encourage transgender mental illness was a threat to kids’ health and well-being.
...
Regarding the first ruling, Bream said, “Therapists out there in Colorado challenged this law when it was passed, saying, ‘I need to be able to counsel clients for whatever services they're seeking.’ So the court looked at this, finally decided eight to one in her favor, striking down that law in Colorado.”

She read from the majority decision that said the Colorado law is “censoring speech based on viewpoints” and “the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."

Progs' Wednesday is full of woe, today.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10