TimHauck

Ed rooting hard for the economy to crash

Another lie from this awful account. No casualties were reported

Yes

Racist

Is that a drag queen or a trans woman? If it’s a trans woman, Republicans probably “did it” since the person would likely rather use the women’s bathroom.

If only more people accepted Jesus as their lord and savior, right?

Why does it matter what is used in most shootings? Handguns are easier to hide, and most likely easier to get. I think the question which would preclude a discussion on whether AR-15’s and similar guns should be banned (I’m on the fence), is are they more efficient at killing (particularly in killing multiple people) than handguns? In past threads I think people were making the argument that they were not, but seems like OP is implying they are? Edit: another question would be are AR-15’s more commonly used in crimes that are committed using legal weapons? Yes, it will be harder to prevent criminals from committing gun violence, but a key goal for gun regulation proponents seems to be stopping things like school shootings, which anecdotally at least are often committed using guns that were purchased legally. Yes, they’d likely just use a different gun if an AR-15 was illegal, but if the answer to the first question is US, it could still save some lives if school shooters don’t have access to AR-15’s and similar guns.

Not saying it makes it OK, but one thing that could be skewing the numbers a bit is the fact that most sex abusers are puzzies, so they’re likely afraid of getting raped/killed themselves if they go to a men’s prison. So while people aren’t going to pretend to be a woman just to play sports, they might pretend to be a woman to not become someone’s in prison. Here is a possible example that just came up on my feed (and note this only says he “might” be sent to a women’s prison, not that it’s actually going to happen

No bias here

Holy sh1t, a million babies are missing! That doesn’t sound good

Wait weren’t you just suggesting he leaked a video of himself being a d1ck to get himself more viewers? And I’m the one not making sense?

I do find it odd that the wife “asked Crowder not to talk about the divorce publicly,” since I’d be surprised if it wasn’t her or someone with her permission that leaked the ring video.

It’s a ring camera outside of a rich dude’s house, holy sh1t you’re dumb. And I’m pretty sure him saying “watch it” was because he knew it was being recorded.

2 million followers on Twitter, you’re right, he’s a nobody

OK, so I was right all along, got it.

I'm sure Stew Peters has an answer

I tried to, but then he went all wishy washy, and yet you claim I'm the one arguing semantics. You guys are funny.

Whether or not the commercial is new is only a minor point of the discussion (what were you saying about little tangential details?). What I was commenting on originally was that Mulvaney was never on TV, so there wasn’t really anything to “move on” from to begin with in terms of TV advertising.

You commented in response to a non-tranny commercial that they’re moving on from Mulvaney, but say they didn’t make a commercial specifically to move on from Mulvaney. Got it, clear as mud. What was the point of your post again then? I was trying to apologize but now it kinda seems like I was right about what you were implying.

I thought by saying “they were moving on,” you thought it had something to do with Mulvaney. If that wasn’t your intention, I apologize.

You said they’re “moving on,” but in all likelihood that was going to be their TV commercial anyway. It usually takes longer than 2-3 weeks to develop a commercial.

Whoops sorry I read the tweet wrong. He said older than Till, not Bryant

What’s the real story?

Also, forgot I hadn't replied to the above: