Hodad Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) 10 hours ago, Rebound said: With the Chiefs headed to the Super Bowl, the MAGAverse is taking Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome into full lunatic overdrive. One Fox News commentator said that the Biden Administration is behind a conspiracy for the Chiefs to win the Super Bowl, as part of a campaign strategy to repay Swift for endorsing Biden. Fox News’ Jesse Watters asked whether Taylor Swift is a “Pentagon Asset.” (Hey, if she can defeat Hamas and the Houthis, I’m all for it) Vivek jumped in: “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month. And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall.” Benny Jonson (whoever he is), opined: “Taylor Swift is an op. It’s all fake. You’re being played.” Laura Looney Loomer added: “It’s not a coincidence that current and former Biden admin officials are propping up Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. They are going to use Taylor Swift as the poster child for their pro-abortion GOTV Campaign.” Mike Crispi: “The NFL is totally RIGGED for the Kansas City Chiefs, Taylor Swift, Mr. Pfizer (Travis Kelce). All to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA. Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield. It’s all been an op since day one,” Crispi concluded. Yup. The NFL and popular music are part of a government-lead conspiracy to legalize abortion (something 70% of the American public favors, by the way). All this makes one thing clear: MAGA has nothing to run on. No benefits to offer America, just absurdities and imaginary fear of football players and musicians. Next, they’ll tell us that ice cream is part of a plot, too. The people spreading this nonsense are, perhaps, cynical opportunists, but the people believing it are just abysmally, irredeemably stupid. Not much more to say Edited January 31 by Hodad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 59 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: Yes.. indeed 25 seconds. And get this? If you are in the stadium.. 0 seconds. Those who say, "I just want to watch football" are lying to be honest. They sit through commercials that are far longer than 25 seconds and are far more annoying. Since she began being on the game telecasts.. the longest exposure was 51 seconds and that was during the KC vs. MIA game where the game temp was -30F.. The game was not all that interesting and I am a heavy duty football fan. I don't watch football anymore, but I used to watch a lot of CFL. We went to the games when I was a kid. I have only watched a handful of NFL games, but I remember on one game I watched John Madden talked about how much sweat was dripping down from the center's butt onto the QB's hands when he was reaching in to wait for the snap. He actually showed a close-up video and it was disgusting. All of a sudden those huge QB contracts made perfect sense I'd rather watch Taylor Swift make out with Lizzo than see that buttsweat clip again. I wonder if that was the last game I watched lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said: Shake it off! Shake it off! off off! And remember, more than two shakes constitutes pleasure! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deluge said: Nope. The Constitution CLEARLY addresses citizens. If it didn't, it would be the World Constitution, not the US Constitution. Illegal aliens have nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Dear Very Very Stupld Person, HERE is the text of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Pay attention to the BOLDED text: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now, please explain to us what on Earth this has to do with Taylor Swift. Edited January 30 by Rebound 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Deluge said: "All persons" does not include illegal aliens. You woketards are encouraging illegals to get their wombs ready once they illegally cross the border. lol I swear to god, chimpanzees show greater understanding than you degenerates. It says all persons born. Read much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, WestCanMan said: I don't watch football anymore, but I used to watch a lot of CFL. We went to the games when I was a kid. I have only watched a handful of NFL games, but I remember on one game I watched John Madden talked about how much sweat was dripping down from the center's butt onto the QB's hands when he was reaching in to wait for the snap. He actually showed a close-up video and it was disgusting. All of a sudden those huge QB contracts made perfect sense I'd rather watch Taylor Swift make out with Lizzo than see that buttsweat clip again. I wonder if that was the last game I watched lol too funny. I wanted to play football in middle and high school but being inordinately short (4'8" during my freshman year) made the prospect pretty daunting. That being said, have played plenty of backyard games and always found it to be a good way to exert energy. That being said.. It is always interesting why teams sign this player, draft this player, fire the coach, or why they are good/bad for any length of time. Explaining why the Detroit Lions have never played in a super bowl, for example, is a multi-layered item. Completely unrelated note.. Just interviewed a candidate for a position in my office (Carson City, Nevada) that is from Barrie, Ontario. It was a bit different hearing his experiences. Edited January 31 by impartialobserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCanMan Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 26 minutes ago, impartialobserver said: That being said.. It is always interesting why teams sign this player, draft this player, fire the coach, or why they are good/bad for any length of time. Explaining why the Detroit Lions have never played in a super bowl, for example, is a multi-layered item. Weird, seeing as they had Barry Sanders. Maybe he was their best player ever though. Did they ever have an elite QB? I can't think of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impartialobserver Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Weird, seeing as they had Barry Sanders. Maybe he was their best player ever though. Did they ever have an elite QB? I can't think of one. I could write a 10 page post but will boil it down to a few simple things.. they are always swinging for the fences. They occasionally get lucky but when they do.. they overpay to keep their stars and with a salary cap, that leaves one at a disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, robosmith said: Not even Trump's SCOTUS will buy your BULLSHIT. Everyone but you has long known the true meaning of the 14th A. They don't have to buy it - they already know, and I can't wait to see your snot nosed faces when we kill that stoopid interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, Rebound said: Dear Very Very Stupld Person, HERE is the text of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Pay attention to the BOLDED text: Section 1. All persons ... I'm sorry, jackass; it's persons, as in citizens and slaves, not your precious law evading dreamers. Study up on context; you're in desperate need of undrstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, Aristides said: It says all persons born. Read much? All persons, as in citizens and slaves. Only a democrat would try to include everyone on the planet because you groomers need more voters for your democrat party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 12 minutes ago, Deluge said: All persons, as in citizens and slaves. Only a democrat would try to include everyone on the planet because you groomers need more voters for your democrat party. Nope, just says, “all persons” no qualifications . You are just making stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 5 minutes ago, Aristides said: Nope, just says, “all persons” no qualifications . You are just making stuff up. Nope, there's no context for it. It's citizens and slaves, that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Deluge said: Nope, there's no context for it. It's citizens and slaves, that's it. That’s right, you are just making shit up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Aristides said: That’s right, you are just making shit up. No, that's the democrat party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 Just now, Deluge said: No, that's the democrat party. Says all persons born or naturalized, it is very specific. You are just making crap up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 21 minutes ago, Aristides said: Says all persons born or naturalized, it is very specific. You are just making crap up. "All persons" meaning slaves and citizens. Talk about the great immigration debate of the 1860's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 5 hours ago, impartialobserver said: The Chiefs group of WR led the league in dropped passes. Also, due to lack of talent.. they were not winning the battle against the other teams defensive backs and so were not getting open. A surprising transformation, but surely not a conspiracy. These guys are simply playing for something bigger. The amazing power of pussey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 (edited) 2 hours ago, Aristides said: Says all persons born or naturalized, it is very specific. You are just making crap up. 1 hour ago, Deluge said: "All persons" meaning slaves and citizens. Talk about the great immigration debate of the 1860's. Debate what you want but read your own constitution because the SC will. It doesn't say anything about slaves and citizens in the 14th Amendment, you are just making crap up. Edited January 31 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, Deluge said: They don't have to buy it - they already know, and I can't wait to see your snot nosed faces when we kill that stoopid interpretation. You're DELUGINAL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 11 hours ago, WestCanMan said: Weird, seeing as they had Barry Sanders. Maybe he was their best player ever though. Did they ever have an elite QB? I can't think of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 11 hours ago, Aristides said: Debate what you want but read your own constitution because the SC will. It doesn't say anything about slaves and citizens in the 14th Amendment, you are just making crap up. And "All persons" sure as hell doesn't include the offspring of non-citizens, either - especially illegal aliens. There WILL need to be clarification on this amendment, unfortunately, as you groomers have been abusing the sh*t out of it. The BEST way to look at this is, Citizens beget citizens, Green Card holders beget Green Card holders, and illegal aliens beget illegal aliens, and I'm confident the majority of the SC will see it in similar fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 10 hours ago, robosmith said: You're DELUGINAL. No, I'm Deluge. Now go play with your heroes of communism dolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted January 31 Author Report Share Posted January 31 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Deluge said: And "All persons" sure as hell doesn't include the offspring of non-citizens, either - especially illegal aliens. There WILL need to be clarification on this amendment, unfortunately, as you groomers have been abusing the sh*t out of it. The BEST way to look at this is, Citizens beget citizens, Green Card holders beget Green Card holders, and illegal aliens beget illegal aliens, and I'm confident the majority of the SC will see it in similar fashion. A person is a person. If a Greek tourist shoots somebody, do they walk into court and say, “Hey, I’m not a citizen so I don’t have to follow your laws”? If he does, the judge says, “Too bad, you’re under our jurisdiction and you’re getting tried for shooting someone.” That Greek tourist is a person and he is subject to US jurisdiction. Now, the Canadian Ambassador is also a person, but not under the jurisdiction of US laws. If the Ambassador has a baby in New York, that baby is not an American citizen. I understand that you don’t think the children of non-citizens should have the right of citizenship. Many agree with you, but you have to pass laws if you want that change. We cannot elect a man who will just do whatever the F he wants. The President must follow the laws. Otherwise, we don’t need laws, or Congress, or judges. We just have one dictator who makes all the decisions. That’s called dictatorship, and we don’t have that in America. Edited January 31 by Rebound 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Rebound said: 2 minutes ago, Rebound said: 1. A person is a person. If a Greek tourist shoots somebody, do they walk into court and say, “Hey, I’m not a citizen so I don’t have to follow your laws”? If he does, the judge says, “Too bad, you’re under our jurisdiction and you’re getting tried for shooting someone.” That Greek tourist is a person and he is subject to US jurisdiction. Now, the Canadian Ambassador is also a person, but not under the jurisdiction of US laws. If the Ambassador has a baby in New York, that baby is not an American citizen. 1. A person is a person. 2. If a Greek tourist shoots somebody, do they walk into court and say, “Hey, I’m not a citizen so I don’t have to follow your laws”? If he does, the judge says, “Too bad, you’re under our jurisdiction and you’re getting tried for shooting someone.” That Greek tourist is a person and he is subject to US jurisdiction. Now, the Canadian Ambassador is also a person, but not under the jurisdiction of US laws. If the Ambassador has a baby in New York, that baby is not an American citizen. 1. And a citizen is a citizen, which an illegal alien isn't. 2. If illegal aliens sneak into the country and bear children should the offspring be awarded citizenship for their parent's illegal behaviors? The answer is no. You NEVER reward wrong behaviors - EVER. The best way to rule on this is how I stated in my last comment, and I'm confident the SC will agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.