Ukraine - Doomsday

[IGotWorms 4,059]

I mean obviously there’s a lot of purposeful misinformation in war. Propaganda everywhere. What I find odd is that some Geeks willingly accept and want to believe Putin’s side of things

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

He apparently  loves Putin’s disinformation, which to me is one and the same: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-net-worth-rumors/?amp

Yeah. I can point out plenty of articles saying that hunter biden's laptop was not real and that it was Russian disinformation as well. 

The same writers who are now saying it is real.

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I mean obviously there’s a lot of purposeful misinformation in war. Propaganda everywhere. What I find odd is that some Geeks willingly accept and want to believe Putin’s side of things

What makes you think Ukraine is this amazing country that treats it's people like kings and queens? Sounds like Ukrainian disinformation.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

Yeah. I can point out plenty of articles saying that hunter biden's laptop was not real and that it was Russian disinformation as well. 

The same writers who are now saying it is real.

It’s possible you’re right, who really knows for sure. But what I find odd Is you WANT to believe the stuff that hurts our ally and helps Putin

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s possible you’re right, who really knows for sure. But what I find odd Is you WANT to believe the stuff that hurts our ally and helps Putin

I'm not picking sides in this war. With biden having pulled that bullshlt telling them they are not getting money from the US unless they fire a prosecutor and then they do it, fock that. Then they put hunter in a big position and pay him an absurd salary for him doing nothing tells me they are criminals too, just like biden. 

I take no sides in this war. And to a bunch of people here, that means I like Putin for some reason.  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

22 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s possible you’re right, who really knows for sure. But what I find odd Is you WANT to believe the stuff that hurts our ally and helps Putin

is Ukraine our ally? I dont believe they are

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

is Ukraine our ally? I dont believe they are

Yeah, they gave a shltload of money to the biden family. I guess that makes them an ally in some people's minds. 

Now joey can buy his 4th house. And can afford to build walls around all of them for his safety.

[Gepetto 1,375]

4 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/europe/russia-ukraine-belgorod-fire-intl/index.htm

 

Ukers hammer depot in Russia and set millions of gallons of fuel ablaze. Suck it, Russia!

I look forward to a day the Ukers send their special ops on a special secret mission to Putin's home in the middle of the night, similar to what the U.S. did to Osama.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,519]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

He apparently  loves Putin’s disinformation, which to me is one and the same: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ukraine-president-zelenskyy-net-worth-rumors/?amp

You can just google Zalinsky Pandora papers. And then suck it.  Putin! 

[IGotWorms 4,059]

1 hour ago, Utilit99 said:

I'm not picking sides in this war. With biden having pulled that bullshlt telling them they are not getting money from the US unless they fire a prosecutor and then they do it, fock that. Then they put hunter in a big position and pay him an absurd salary for him doing nothing tells me they are criminals too, just like biden. 

I take no sides in this war. And to a bunch of people here, that means I like Putin for some reason. 

It does, yes. When a western democracy gets attacked by an autocrat like Putin, you take the side of democracy. Period.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 hour ago, Gepetto said:

I look forward to a day the Ukers send their special ops on a special secret mission to Putin's home in the middle of the night, similar to what the U.S. did to Osama.

That has to be a kick in the nuts to Russian morale. The fire this attack caused must be awesome, and other storage tanks around it might blow.

What a smart thing to go after. I have to think we might have helped a little with intelligence.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

14 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It does, yes. When a western democracy gets attacked by an autocrat like Putin, you take the side of democracy. Period.

Ding!

To do otherwise is shameful and despicable. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,519]

27 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It does, yes. When a western democracy gets attacked by an autocrat like Putin, you take the side of democracy. Period.

Democracy.  Lol. 3 revolutions and 2-3 wars in 10 years. Clueless. The last president had to flee for his life.  Democracy. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

28 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It does, yes. When a western democracy gets attacked by an autocrat like Putin, you take the side of democracy. Period.

Fock that. It's a shlthole. Like I said, I'm not for either side. I'm.not going to fall for that bull crap you are spreading. 

That's a typical liberal argument technique. If you don't believe as I do, then I will label you whatever I want. 

It's like the whole racist thing. If you don't support blm, you're a racist. If you don't give a black person a job over a more qualified white person, you're a racist.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

44 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Democracy.  Lol. 3 revolutions and 2-3 wars in 10 years. Clueless. The last president had to flee for his life.  Democracy. 

There you go again 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,519]

8 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

There you go again 

Stating facts is love for Putin. Here’s some love : Putin is a despot and should be assassinated. Just because Putin is treacherous doesn’t make Zelinsky and his oligarchs virtuous. All garbage. One just stinks more. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

I hate the buzz word Oligarch, its akin to racist homophobic etc

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I hate the buzz word Oligarch, its akin to racist homophobic etc

 

It refers to rich businessmen, particularly Russian ones. It's not a buzz word. Not even close to racist or homophobic, Slingblade. And no one spouts more buzzwords than ignorant alt-righty knuckle draggers. Cuck. Woke. BDS. Etc.

Lol.

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 minute ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It refers to rich businessmen, particularly Russian ones. It's not a buzz word. Not even close to racist or homophobic, Slingblade. And no one spouts more buzzwords than ignorant alt-righty knuckle draggers. Cuck. Woke. BDS. Etc.

Lol.

 

wow. TDS is strong in this one.

[Voltaire 5,335]

23 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I hate the buzz word Oligarch, its akin to racist homophobic etc

 

We only apply it to rich elites who run countries we don't like. I don't see how/why the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world get a pass.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

19 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

It refers to rich businessmen, particularly Russian ones. It's not a buzz word. Not even close to racist or homophobic, Slingblade. And no one spouts more buzzwords than ignorant alt-righty knuckle draggers. Cuck. Woke. BDS. Etc.

Lol.

 

really?  I know exactly what it means.  If youre going to use it, use it on the actual oligarchs here, Bezos, Gates, Fockerberg

and yes its the same as racist and homophobic, you are only using it to refer to someone you dont agree with

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

It does, yes. When a western democracy gets attacked by an autocrat like Putin, you take the side of democracy. Period.

You dont even know what is going on over there. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

Rusty has signed up to fight in ukraine, yes?

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

21 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

really?  I know exactly what it means.  If youre going to use it, use it on the actual oligarchs here, Bezos, Gates, Fockerberg

and yes its the same as racist and homophobic, you are only using it to refer to someone you dont agree with

 

An Oligarch, a.k.a. a rich Russian businessman, is not the same thing as a racist, who hates and discriminates against those of a race other than their own, and homophobics, who hate and discriminate against gay people.

Being rich, Russian and a businessman is not the same as being a buttknuckle hater, Slingblade. This is like comparing tampons to hand grenades.

Thanks for the laugh.

Ummmmm, mustard.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

An Oligarch, a.k.a. a rich Russian businessman, is not the same thing as a racist, who hates and discriminates against those of a race other than their own, and homophobics, who hate and discriminate against gay people.

Being rich, Russian and a businessman is not the same as being a buttknuckle hater, Slingblade. This is like comparing tampons to hand grenades.

Thanks for the laugh.

Ummmmm, mustard.

oligarch has nothing to do with a country dumba55, the point is again, racist and homophobic doesn't mean someone who hates or discriminates any more, it means someone who disagrees with libtards like you

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

16 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

You dont even know what is going on over there. 

Enlighten us about what's going on over there. I very much want to brush up on this.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

2 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Enlighten us about what's going on over there. I very much want to brush up on this.

Oh boy. Get ready for the

[Utilit99 4,099]

12 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Enlighten us about what's going on over there. I very much want to brush up on this.

Since you brought it up, why don't you start? You seem to know both governments inside and out and all the happenings in Ukraine prior to all this shlt. Give us the clear picture without dumbing it down to your ignorance level.

Better yet, respond as @huskyhater75!!!! Please. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

oligarch has nothing to do with a country dumba55, the point is again, racist and homophobic doesn't mean someone who hates or discriminates any more, it means someone who disagrees with libtards like you

 

The point being you're comparing rich Russian businessmen to the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. So Vladimir Barishnakov is the same thing as Bociphous P. Inbred in his jacked-up Ford with the tattered Confederate and Clownzo 2020 flags a-flyin'.

You must have a tumor in your head, Slingblade.

 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Oh boy. Get ready for the

He is sure the civil war will begin before the end of the year. He's SURE. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Since you brought it up, why don't you start? You seem to know both governments inside and out and all the happenings in Ukraine prior to all this shlt. Give us the clear picture without dumbing it down to your ignorance level.

Better yet, respond as @huskyhater75!!!! Please. 

Come on @huskyhater75!! You can do it pimpledoosh.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

4 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

The point being you're comparing rich Russian businessmen to the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists. So Vladimir Barishnakov is the same thing as Bociphous P. Inbred in his jacked-up Ford with the tattered Confederate and Clownzo 2020 flags a-flyin'.

You must have a tumor in your head, Slingblade.

 

nope I am not comparing anyone to anyone jackwad

I am saying words leftists use have no meaning, you idiots dont even know what a woman is

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

nope I am not comparing anyone to anyone jackwad

I am saying words leftists use have no meaning, you idiots dont even know what a woman is

You're drunk and making no sense. Come back when your mind is clear. You're not worth my effort when you're in this state. It's like kicking a passed-out homeless person. I have standards. Night night, Slingblade.

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

nope I am not comparing anyone to anyone jackwad

I am saying words leftists use have no meaning, you idiots dont even know what a woman is

 rusty is getting kicked to the curb. 

If Ketanji Brown Jackson Doesn’t Know What A ‘Woman’ Is, Why Does She Use The Word So Much?

 

Joe Biden’s recent Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom the president has admitted was nominated in part because she is a woman, stunned listeners on Tuesday when she refused to give a definition of what a woman is.

“I can’t. … I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said after Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked her to provide a definition of the word “woman.”

But for not knowing what a “woman” is, Jackson loves to use the word. Here are 14 times she invokes the fairer sex in just the first two days of her confirmation hearings, plus 34 times she’s used the word in her legal opinions as a judge (emphasis ours).

 

KBJ Referenced Women 14 Times in First Two Days of Hearings

In her opening statement on day one of her confirmation hearings, Jackson opined that “I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African-American woman to be appointed to the bench.”

On day two, Jackson couldn’t talk about the Supreme Court’s precedent on abortion without referencing women.

“Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy,” she said.

“After Casey, the court has determined not so much that the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy is fundamental,” she continued. “The right exists and it’s subject to the framework in Casey that allows for regulation.”

She also mentioned a female witness in a case related to child sex crimes, an area of law where she has been accused of handing down light sentences to child pornography offenders.

“I somehow still have nightmares about the main witness, the woman I mentioned earlier,” Jackson said, demonstrating her ability to identify the woman’s sex.

She’s also invoked the concept of womanhood to pat herself on the back for being nominated.

 

“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” she said.

And again: “Because I am a woman, because I am a black woman, all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them.”

Yet again: “Having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters.”

And then three times in the same sentence: “I gave a speech about black women in the civil rights movement, most of the speech if not all of the speech was focused on African American women, their contributions to the civil rights movement, unsung contributions in many cases, and then some of the more recent African American women who have made claims, who have done things in our society.”

She even acknowledged not just the 

existence of women, but the existence of men. “We believe that we have a government of laws and not men,” she told senators. “And yet there are men and women who are acting as judges in the context of our system.”

When she spoke of her own motherhood and her own daughters, she tacitly admitted the strong connection that the telos of motherhood has to womanhood. “I know so many young women, in this country especially, who have small kids who have these momentous events and have to make a choice,” she said of balancing career obligations with children’s schedules.

And after Blackburn questioned Jackson about an opinion she’d signed referring to pro-lifers as “a hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters,” Jackson referred to “women who wanted to enter [abortion] clinics” in her response. That opinion made five more references to a “woman” or “women.”

But that’s not the only document in Jackson’s legal record where she used the terms “woman” and “women” and assumed there will be no confusion about what she meant.

34-Plus Mentions of ‘Woman’ or ‘Women’ in Judicial Opinions

In her opinion in the case Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Jackson referenced “programs that seek to decrease the prevalence of teen pregnancy among eighteen- and nineteen-year-old African American and Latina women.”

She used the word “woman” four times and the word “women” twice in Azadeh v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In James v. United States, she wrote “woman” 11 times.

 

In City & County of San Francisco v. Azar, Jackson referred to “pregnant women,” “the relationship between physicians and women seeking the abortion,” “the obstacles women have in asserting their right to an abortion,” “women seeking abortions,” and “a woman seeking an emergency abortion,” in addition to stating that “women generally cannot safely secure abortions without the aid of physicians.”

In Garcia v. Roberts, she wrote about the “manner that bar admission rules in the nineteenth century unlawfully discriminated against women and African–American applicants.”

“Plaintiff Bukola Alibalogun (‘Alibalogun’) is a woman of African descent,” she said in Alibalogun v. First Coast Security Solutions, Inc.

She introduced a plaintiff similarly in Perry v. Colvin: “Plaintiff, Janell Perry, is a 46-year old woman residing in Washington, DC.”

In Beshir v. Jewell, she explained “Shirlean Beshir (‘Beshir’ or ‘Plaintiff’) is an African–American woman who was fifty-one years of age during the summer and fall of 2007.”

And in Austin-Spearman v. AARP & AARP Services Inc.: “Plaintiff Ethel Austin–Spearman is an internet savvy woman.”

Again, in Lawson v. Sessions: “Sheila Lawson is an African–American woman who began her employment as a Special Agent (‘SA’) with the FBI on October 15, 1995.”

In her description of plaintiff Geraldine Campfield in Campfield v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jackson wrote, “At the time of the alleged onset of her disability, Plaintiff was a 51-year-old woman.”

In United States v. Georgieff, she noted that defendant Jordan Georgieff had “married a second woman, Dariana Borisova,” while still married to his former wife.

Jackson repeatedly referred to “woman-owned small businesses” in her opinion in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense.

In United States v. Hillie, a child pornography case, the judge wrote that “Charles Hillie (who was born in November of 1983) became romantically involved with a woman.”

Repeatedly using a word she says she “can’t” define is not a good look for a potential Supreme Court justice. Blackburn should ask Jackson: What did you mean by “woman” all of those times you said and wrote it?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/23/if-ketanji-brown-jackson-doesnt-know-what-a-woman-is-why-does-she-use-the-word-so-much/

 

 

[huskyhater75 242]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

nope I am not comparing anyone to anyone jackwad

I am saying words leftists use have no meaning, you idiots dont even know what a woman is

A woman is don trump, the woman that you back, so I guess YOU don't know what a real woman is. Mrs Doubtfire (sorry to disappoint) is NOT  man, not even a boy, acts like a woman with PMS.

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, huskyhater75 said:

A woman is don trump, the woman that you back, so I guess YOU don't know what a real woman is. Mrs Doubtfire (sorry to disappoint) is NOT  man, not even a boy, acts like a woman with PMS.

YES!!!!       

Thank you rusty-2. This is awesome.  

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

23 minutes ago, huskyhater75 said:

A woman is don trump, the woman that you back, so I guess YOU don't know what a real woman is. Mrs Doubtfire (sorry to disappoint) is NOT  man, not even a boy, acts like a woman with PMS.

You speak the truth. I applaud you, sir.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,369]

35 minutes ago, huskyhater75 said:

A woman is don trump, the woman that you back, so I guess YOU don't know what a real woman is. Mrs Doubtfire (sorry to disappoint) is NOT  man, not even a boy, acts like a woman with PMS.

You aren’t a biologist. And I don’t back trump. So Ofer 2

[Utilit99 4,099]

12 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

You speak the truth. I applaud you, sir.

Responding to himself again. Life is so good except for liberals. But at least this liberal rusty entertains well. 

Thank you rusty. This is precious. 

[nobody 2,702]

1 hour ago, Utilit99 said:

 rusty is getting kicked to the curb. 

If Ketanji Brown Jackson Doesn’t Know What A ‘Woman’ Is, Why Does She Use The Word So Much?

 

Joe Biden’s recent Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom the president has admitted was nominated in part because she is a woman, stunned listeners on Tuesday when she refused to give a definition of what a woman is.

“I can’t. … I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said after Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked her to provide a definition of the word “woman.”

But for not knowing what a “woman” is, Jackson loves to use the word. Here are 14 times she invokes the fairer sex in just the first two days of her confirmation hearings, plus 34 times she’s used the word in her legal opinions as a judge (emphasis ours).

 

KBJ Referenced Women 14 Times in First Two Days of Hearings

In her opening statement on day one of her confirmation hearings, Jackson opined that “I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me, including Judge Constance Baker Motley, who was the first African-American woman to be appointed to the bench.”

On day two, Jackson couldn’t talk about the Supreme Court’s precedent on abortion without referencing women.

“Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy,” she said.

“After Casey, the court has determined not so much that the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy is fundamental,” she continued. “The right exists and it’s subject to the framework in Casey that allows for regulation.”

She also mentioned a female witness in a case related to child sex crimes, an area of law where she has been accused of handing down light sentences to child pornography offenders.

“I somehow still have nightmares about the main witness, the woman I mentioned earlier,” Jackson said, demonstrating her ability to identify the woman’s sex.

She’s also invoked the concept of womanhood to pat herself on the back for being nominated.

 

“I am humbled and honored to have the opportunity to serve in this capacity and to be the first and only black woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” she said.

And again: “Because I am a woman, because I am a black woman, all of those things people have said have been really meaningful to them.”

Yet again: “Having meaningful numbers of women and people of color, I think matters.”

And then three times in the same sentence: “I gave a speech about black women in the civil rights movement, most of the speech if not all of the speech was focused on African American women, their contributions to the civil rights movement, unsung contributions in many cases, and then some of the more recent African American women who have made claims, who have done things in our society.”

She even acknowledged not just the 

existence of women, but the existence of men. “We believe that we have a government of laws and not men,” she told senators. “And yet there are men and women who are acting as judges in the context of our system.”

When she spoke of her own motherhood and her own daughters, she tacitly admitted the strong connection that the telos of motherhood has to womanhood. “I know so many young women, in this country especially, who have small kids who have these momentous events and have to make a choice,” she said of balancing career obligations with children’s schedules.

And after Blackburn questioned Jackson about an opinion she’d signed referring to pro-lifers as “a hostile, noisy crowd of ‘in-your-face’ protesters,” Jackson referred to “women who wanted to enter [abortion] clinics” in her response. That opinion made five more references to a “woman” or “women.”

But that’s not the only document in Jackson’s legal record where she used the terms “woman” and “women” and assumed there will be no confusion about what she meant.

34-Plus Mentions of ‘Woman’ or ‘Women’ in Judicial Opinions

In her opinion in the case Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Jackson referenced “programs that seek to decrease the prevalence of teen pregnancy among eighteen- and nineteen-year-old African American and Latina women.”

She used the word “woman” four times and the word “women” twice in Azadeh v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In James v. United States, she wrote “woman” 11 times.

 

In City & County of San Francisco v. Azar, Jackson referred to “pregnant women,” “the relationship between physicians and women seeking the abortion,” “the obstacles women have in asserting their right to an abortion,” “women seeking abortions,” and “a woman seeking an emergency abortion,” in addition to stating that “women generally cannot safely secure abortions without the aid of physicians.”

In Garcia v. Roberts, she wrote about the “manner that bar admission rules in the nineteenth century unlawfully discriminated against women and African–American applicants.”

“Plaintiff Bukola Alibalogun (‘Alibalogun’) is a woman of African descent,” she said in Alibalogun v. First Coast Security Solutions, Inc.

She introduced a plaintiff similarly in Perry v. Colvin: “Plaintiff, Janell Perry, is a 46-year old woman residing in Washington, DC.”

In Beshir v. Jewell, she explained “Shirlean Beshir (‘Beshir’ or ‘Plaintiff’) is an African–American woman who was fifty-one years of age during the summer and fall of 2007.”

And in Austin-Spearman v. AARP & AARP Services Inc.: “Plaintiff Ethel Austin–Spearman is an internet savvy woman.”

Again, in Lawson v. Sessions: “Sheila Lawson is an African–American woman who began her employment as a Special Agent (‘SA’) with the FBI on October 15, 1995.”

In her description of plaintiff Geraldine Campfield in Campfield v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jackson wrote, “At the time of the alleged onset of her disability, Plaintiff was a 51-year-old woman.”

In United States v. Georgieff, she noted that defendant Jordan Georgieff had “married a second woman, Dariana Borisova,” while still married to his former wife.

Jackson repeatedly referred to “woman-owned small businesses” in her opinion in Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense.

In United States v. Hillie, a child pornography case, the judge wrote that “Charles Hillie (who was born in November of 1983) became romantically involved with a woman.”

Repeatedly using a word she says she “can’t” define is not a good look for a potential Supreme Court justice. Blackburn should ask Jackson: What did you mean by “woman” all of those times you said and wrote it?

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/23/if-ketanji-brown-jackson-doesnt-know-what-a-woman-is-why-does-she-use-the-word-so-much/

 

 

You really caught her in a lie.  Good job.  

Now people will know she really does know what a woman is.