search results matching tag: woman

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.009 seconds

    Videos (1000)     Sift Talk (82)     Blogs (257)     Comments (1000)   

The Image You Can Only See Once You’ve Seen It

noims says...

You think that's messed up? I see a woman making out with a horse!

BSR said:

I see Axl Rose leaning over on stage singing into a microphone with a big red arrow sticking him in the butt.

Anybody...?


Birds Aren't Real!
Strawberry Fields Forever

The Stakes Are Unbelievably High

newtboy says...

You mean the party of debauchery? Treason? Sex trafficking? Vote fraud? Pedophilia? Hebephilia? Secret foreign agents? Infidelity? Insurrection? You mean Republicans?

Right, anything to stop you ethics free, morality free, education free Trumptards led by the least moral person ever to hold office. How does removing all reproductive rights from women accomplish that?

Do you even know what “morals” are? I don’t think so.

Hilariously, Republicans tried to block a bill to help supply babies with formula, because they care so much about babies that they want them to starve to death if it costs $.03 to feed them…but no problem to waste $10 billion in a PR stunt “inspecting” Mexican trucks at the border with zero results.
Edit: They also spent two years screaming about not wearing a mask because they have full body autonomy…the right to spread deadly diseases, and no one has the right to give them a shot to prevent those preventable deaths.
They also leave no exceptions if the woman’s life is endangered by the pregnancy…which would kill both the woman and the zygote.
So much for “pro life”.
Such outrageous hypocrites and liars. The party of irrational hate and fear, immorality and prejudice, thy name is Republican.

bobknight33 said:

Absolutely. Anything to stop the party of no moral fiber.

Florida Man Brings Knife To Gunfight

newtboy says...

Nothing indicated the riders changed their route to follow the guy who cut them off (incredibly dangerous if you’re the bikers in that situation)…when you get cut off, you end up following the person who cut you off unless you just pull over to cry.

“When both men (and the woman) eventually stopped” (at a stop sign? The truck was in front…it was smart to not go around him, it’s not smart to put yourself in front of a raging out of control driver, especially as a rider).
“Rivera stepped out of his truck holding a knife.” Who escalated?

I’m hard pressed to understand how you think the motorcycle escalated the situation considering the circumstances. He was cut off, the truck in front stopped, the crazed man got out brandishing a knife and trying to use it. The rider didn’t pull a weapon until he was actually attacked. He could have legally shot Rivera dead in Florida. I thought he showed great restraint. The police clearly thought the rider had done nothing wrong.

C-note said:

So a man armed with a gun says he was cut off and that's why he followed the guy an escalated the situation. I guess this ended as good as it could considering it was florida.

Let's talk about Republican reaction to the SCOTUS leak....

Roe v. Wade Cold Open - SNL

luxintenebris says...

Lifted from Wikipedia (Margaret Sanger);

(for distribution of contraceptives) Sanger and Byrne went to trial in January 1917. Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on a hunger strike. She was force-fed, the first woman hunger striker in the US to be so treated. Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law was she pardoned after ten days. Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have

"the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception."

Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: "I cannot respect the law as it exists today."For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.

Abortion Ruling: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

BSR says...

If a woman has an illegal abortion the father should also suffer the same exact penalty whatever it is. Even if he has to pay for half the gas to travel out of state and half of the abortion costs and the full cost of flowers at the end. Dinner is optional.

It takes two to tango and two to untango. The body inside the womb is only half hers.

GOP Handmaid’s Tale

BSR says...

Why do you make this a woman thing when a man thing was involved? That sure is pretty convenient for you I would imagine. Takes two to tango.

bobknight33 said:

I don't understand republicans. Trying to stop the killing of unborn children because the mom finds "it" inconvenient is nonsense .

Woman should be able to kill their child for any reason. Let the DR snip the limbs off, the spinal cord and puree the child in the womb. After all it just a blob isn't it?

GOP Handmaid’s Tale

newtboy says...

No one understands Republicans. Their ideas are completely divorced from reality, science, reason, sanity, and morality.

If you don’t like the law, you can just move (remember, that’s your answer to why it’s ok for Republicans to CHANGE the laws). There are plenty of places where abortion is illegal….mostly shithole countries as you call them. Don’t make America one of those.

More lies and nonsense.
No one kills children like that besides Republicans getting secret back alley abortions…I only know you people do that because you accused others, and that’s a guarantee you guys do it no matter how outrageous and unreal the claim.
That is what WILL happen to embryos (not children you tool) in back alley abortion clinics without the proper tools, doctors, and zero oversight. Abortions won’t stop because you drove them into back alleys, they’ll just get more horrific, and that will be 100% on your heads.

Have Republicans set up agencies to take these unwanted children, over 600000 per year, and raise them all at now $275000 each and rising 3% per year? Have Republican doctors figured out how to force live births (without endangering the woman) at 6 weeks or later, and incubators to bring it to term? That’s probably another million on average. Of course not, let those babies starve or be abandoned to the elements, as long as they get born. You aren’t going to spend money to raise them, that’s the rape victim’s responsibility to raise their rapist’s baby. If they didn’t want that responsibility, they shouldn’t have gotten raped.

Are Republicans prepared to be forced to live in hospitals as living dialysis machines, living blood pumps, and living donors of any organ they have two of? If saving lives is important, you would have done all that before trying to remove women’s rights to their own bodies….but you haven’t done any of that because you don’t see women as people who deserve rights to control their own bodies, what’s put in them, and what they have to let grow inside them. Of course not. That’s inconvenient, so fuck those people who need your organs to live. Saving lives isn’t worth losing YOUR bodily autonomy….it’s only worth stripping others of theirs. Hypocrites.

Republicans LOVE killing, all republicans LOVE the death penalty for lesser and lesser crimes and younger and younger convicts. It’s not about stopping life from starting (which happens at first breath, not conception), it’s about controlling those that are their lessors. That’s why there’s no exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the mother (except extremely rare cases in a few places). You don’t care a whit about what happens to the baby, even less about the mother, they’re nothing more than an incubator to your incel ilk.

Blobs aren’t children….or is that what you call your children? It would explain a lot. Nerve pulses aren’t a heartbeat without a heart. Humans don’t have tails. Zygotes aren’t people. I know you disagree with these scientific and medical facts, that only proves they’re correct.

Once again, you make up nonsense based on your pure ignorance, Cartman. You just look dumber, more sexist, and more dishonest daily.

bobknight33 said:

I don't understand republicans. Trying to stop the killing of unborn children because the mom finds "it" inconvenient is nonsense .

Woman should be able to kill their child for any reason. Let the DR snip the limbs off, the spinal cord and puree the child in the womb. After all it just a blob isn't it?

GOP Handmaid’s Tale

bobknight33 says...

I don't understand republicans. Trying to stop the killing of unborn children because the mom finds "it" inconvenient is nonsense .

Woman should be able to kill their child for any reason. Let the DR snip the limbs off, the spinal cord and puree the child in the womb. After all it just a blob isn't it?

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Interesting N Carolina doesn’t disqualify candidates convicted of such things, isn’t it? Some places do, like liberal California. Liberals ACTUALLY care about crime enough to disqualify based on convictions, not “conservatives”.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2410_cfa_20120430_105724_asm_comm.html

Have you written your state legislature to demand they make a law so criminals can’t be elected officials? Thought not.

Then, again I ask you, why would you have ever supported repeatedly convicted con man (school cons, charity cons, repeated business cons) and racist (payed millions for redlining) Trump?

You SAY wrong is wrong, then you vote for convicted criminals constantly. I am certain you voted for the guy whose campaign harvested and filled out ballots in YOUR county, knowing beforehand that he had done that, he won despite blatantly defrauding the election, and would have again if he had run again. You absolutely didn’t say any Republican on the same ballot should be disqualified despite knowing his campaign also filled out fraudulent votes for any Republican they could. You lied and said he had suffered consequences, but you know full well he did not. None. Not only did he take office, and never was charged, he was allowed to run again in the special election required because of his admitted fraud.

The point here is Republicans (like you) SAY they believe in law and order and criminals shouldn’t be elected officials, then you go ahead and vote for people who admit to brutally murdering their wives and tossing the body in a creek and are awaiting trial and then, idiotically, go on to call Democrats the “party of debauchery”. It’s asinine and transparent.

You SAY you care about law and order, then directly encourage perjury (only from your “team”) elect child rapists, sex traffickers, people who protect child rapists, thieves, cheats, deadbeats, blatant racists, and insurectionists. (In one case, Trump, someone who is all of the above).

I can only find wrong worth mentioning on one side because only one side displays this level of wrongness. Why can you only find wrong on Democrats parts, and not see the 95% of horrific wrongness coming from your choices for representatives?

Democrats abuse their travel funds (but only about 10% as much as Republicans), Democrats commit insider trading (but not 1/2 as much as republicans).
Democrats don’t traffic little girls for sex.
Democrats don’t have cocaine fueled lemon party orgies (ugh, just the thought).
Democrats don’t try to commit a coup then blame republicans when it fails.
Democrats don’t run fraudulent charities for veterans which they steal from.
Democrats don’t have private parties with Epstein and little girls.
Democrats don’t repeatedly try to take guns onto planes (Cawthorn).
Democrats don’t harass young school shooting victims with death threats and claims that they’re not real people.
Democrats don’t put hurting republicans above the good of the nation either….they should start, turnabout is fair play, and hurting actual abusive criminals (not just fantasy crimes) is in the national interest.

Yes, I’m biased. It’s insane you aren’t, knowing what we know about current republicans, and what little we have of Democratic crimes. I find you a new disgusting Republican representative committing felonies daily, and you don’t flinch in your unbridled support of them, you toss out red herrings and whataboutisms without ever turning on the majority of pedophiles, hebephiles, rapists, insurrectionists, etc that keep coming from your chosen party.

I agree with your last sentence, but you do not.
You constantly vote for criminals like this and simply turn a blind eye to their convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Democrats got rid of Al Frankenstein for a photo of him pointing at a sleeping woman, Republicans are still trying to elect judge Roy Moore despite his pedophilic history, and re-elect Cawthorn, and Boebert, Gaetz, Jordan, even Epstein’s bestie Trump. All directly tied to pedophilia, and you don’t care one bit. Not to mention the seditious coup attempt so many are complicit in, or the coverups afterwards, or the insider trading, etc.

You don’t care about criminal behavior if it’s a Republican, and you just can’t admit it, but you and all here KNOW it’s true.

bobknight33 said:

A local former Charlotte mayor was convicted and sent to jail for taking bribes many times , using under cover FBI agents and is now running for city counsel.

And like always I said wrong is wrong but you somehow can only find wrong on 1 side.

You seem a bit biased.

Neither should be allowed to hold any government job of any type.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

dogboy49 said:

To me, the current crop of justices seem to be less willing to deviate from the Constitution as written. Should abortion be allowed? IMO, yes. BUT, are laws banning abortion unconstitutional? According to the Constitution as written and amended, probably not. Roe v Wade was written by a court that believed that abortion and the "right to privacy" should carry the weight of constitutional law, even though the Constitution is silent on these "rights".

My suggestion: If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be subject to the vagaries of "interpretation" forever.

The Best Female Swimmer in the World!

newtboy says...

They are real women, no matter how you wish otherwise.
Are men that take testosterone supplements not real males? Same for women taking estrogen, not real females? Women who’ve had a hysterectomy? Men who had penectomies or testicular removal?
Is this a “real woman” who should compete against women? https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/31662608/boxer-patricio-manuel-transgender-pioneer-looking-next-fight

What expertise in the fields of gender vs sex vs sexual orientation do you boast to contradict the actual experts with careers in those subjects?
A:None, you’re an alleged maintenance/service tech with embarrassing language skills, and apparently a total lack of scientific knowledge.

Where’s your evidence of that “disadvantage “? Where are the rest of the 2% of athletes that are top of their sport and trans? You make the claim, prove it (one example does not prove anything). Guess you failed math too.

That could be true if your loopy idea that men are pretending to be women to get an advantage in sports were in any way true, but it’s pure unadulterated nonsense.
Trans women must go through years of hormone therapy; supplements, hormone blockers, sometimes even surgery to be able to compete. In many leagues they must never go through male puberty. They cannot, as you clearly think is the norm, just put on a woman’s swimsuit and compete with women, then whip their dicks out after competition and go back to being macho men. Your insistence on keeping your head firmly encased in your lower intestine, in the dark, listening to yourself echo through your own fart chamber is what lets you believe such utterly ridiculous nonsense.

I think it’s abundantly clear to everyone which of us lives in an echo chamber of lies and nonsense and which of us thinks for themselves, and equally clear which prefers the light of knowledge and fact and which sticks to their dark cave of ignorance and misinformed opinion.

Er mer gerd…. ROTFLMFAHS!!! Mr cranial rectosis projects so freaking hard, yo.

bobknight33 said:

It puts real women at a true disadvantage.
Even a fruit loop like you should see this.

Guess your head still up you ass and you are living in the dark listening to your own echo chamber..

The Best Female Swimmer in the World!

bobknight33 says...

Nope not at all, You just not liking to look into you leftest mirror.

It is real. Men posing as woman in sports is bananas.

Lia Thomas becomes first transgender woman to win an NCAA swimming championship.

newtboy said:

Really going full blown nutcase today I see @bobknight33.
I believe you believe this is real…because you just aren’t very smart but are very prejudiced and intolerant.

Wikipedia's Bias

luxintenebris says...

Ever try to trick a dog w/the fake stick toss? Even they stop and scan to find evidence. (ours learned the ruse quickly)

spins my gourd that folks are SO EASILY misled by these fairy tales of teachers indoctrinating kids (yet, they can't get them to sit still, stop talking, or return materials on time); fears of giving citizens PSTD with known history (but explaining why 'person. woman. man. camera. tv' is NOT unsettling); or libraries can't be trusted to be run by librarians but the by the government (what were Ben Franklin and Andrew Carnegie thinking?)

look, boy! go get the stick! (no wonder all the anger. can't find it. but it has to be here!)

BTW: Roy and Silo thing is nuts. (not mentioned but peripheral involved) rather listen to John Oliver analyze "Air Bud". a lot less loopy.

newtboy said:

EDITED FOR SPACE

This Man Votes



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists