Let Freedom Reign!

HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 

 What the Left Did Last Week

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3


Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   12/25/2017, 8:43 pm

happy jack wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Seriously?  With all the fucked up shit that's going down in this country, this is what you choose to focus on?  I think that it's way past time that we start talking about policy, not "politics."  

So, you create a thread, Free speech and the Trump Administration, decrying the fact that someone is telling someone else what they should not say, and then you jump into this thread to tell me what I shouldn't be talking about.
And pretty damned funny.
That it sailed right over your head? Yep....pretty damned funny.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   1/3/2018, 10:05 am

Ah , you Lefties - what would I do without you?
If it weren't for you, I'd have to watch Seinfeld reruns whenever I needed a good laugh.
(Full disclosure - I commented on this topic without first begging permission from Scorpion, so let the chips fall where they may.)


The Eleven Most Ridiculously PC Moments of 2017

by Katherine Timpf

A lot of things happened in 2017 — including a lot of being offended. It was hard to narrow it down, but here — in no particular order — are the eleven most politically correct moments of 2017: 1. It was declared “cultural appropriation” for a white woman to wear hoop earrings. A resident assistant at Pitzer College sent out a campus-wide email declaring that it was unacceptable for white girls to wear hoop earrings — because wearing them was culturally offensive to “the black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings.” This did not stop me from continuing to wear hoop earrings. Why? Well, for one thing, I understand that humanity has been around for so long that there’s really no such thing as an original idea anymore, anyway. Everything goes back to someone else’s idea — including hoop earrings, which were initially worn by people in ancient cultures. For another thing, I recognize that bombarding an entire campus with your feelings on jewelry is completely bananas, and a hoop earring is literally just a piece of metal twisted into a circle. No one owns circles, kids — certainly not you. 2. Berkeley students claimed they did not have enough “privilege” to take their exam in class. A group of students at University of California–Berkeley demanded that they be excused from an in-class exam because they just didn’t have enough privilege to be able to handle it emotionally. Note: Going to class and taking exams is literally what college is — so, if you can’t handle that, don’t go. 3. Evergreen State College told professors to take students’ feelings into account when grading them.  Yes, seriously. School officials actually instructed professors to take into account the “emotional commitment” that some students had made to protesting on campus instead of doing work, and to be aware that “the work of students that have not been involved in the protests may also have been affected” because “many feel that the campus is not safe.” The college’s president had already given protesting students passes on their homework, a concession that was captured on a video that went viral in May. 4. Certain kinds of eyebrows were deemed “cultural appropriation.” According to an op-ed written by a student at Louisiana State University, women styling their eyebrows to make them appear thicker is an example of “cultural appropriation.” She also used the phrase “eyebrow culture,” when making her point, which I’ve got to admit is something I spend approximately zero percent of my time thinking about. 5. The size of chairs was declared a “microaggression.” The size of chairs was deemed a microaggression against overweight people, according to a guide released by The New School, a private college in New York City. Damn chairs! 6. A city councilman was concerned that hosing poop-covered sidewalks might be culturally insensitive. A Seattle councilman expressed concern that hosing down some filthy sidewalks that smelled of excrement might be insensitive “because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.” Before I saw this article, I would have told you that the idea that a poop-mess needs to be cleaned up — and that that clean-up generally involves water — was the least controversial opinion in human history. I would have been wrong. 7. The University of Arizona hired students to tattle on each other. The school’s paid “social-justice activists” were instructed to “report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff.” It seems like a good time to remind everyone that people who attend college are generally adults. 8. A British student union tried to ban clapping and cheering because it was not inclusive to deaf people. The National Union of Students warned the audience at its conference to avoid clapping or cheering during speeches, to avoid making deaf people feel excluded. The craziest part is, they instructed participants to use “jazz hands” instead — as if they don’t even realize how exclusive that could be for blind people. 9. Expecting people to be on time was declared “culturally insensitive.” A Clemson University diversity training taught participants that it was offensive to expect people to be on time, because “time may be considered fluid” in some cultures. 10. Authors were hiring “sensitivity readers” to problematic-proof their novels. Novelists are now employing “sensitivity readers” in order to make sure that they don’t portray fictional characters from other communities in an inaccurate way. Note: No one actually knows how to portray a fictional person “accurately,” because fictional people do not exist. In all seriousness, this trend is a terrifying one that threatens to ruin the art of fiction as we know it. 11. A social-justice math class taught participants how “math has been used as a dehumanizing tool.” An online course instructed math teachers to teach their students how math has been historically used to oppress people. Have to use all class time wisely.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   1/13/2018, 10:32 pm


In Oregon, Progressivism Spills Over at the Pump

by George Will January 13, 2018 8:00 PM @GeorgeWill

A dumb new state law prohibits urban Oregonians from filling their own gas tanks. Frank Lloyd Wright purportedly said, “Tip the world over on its side and everything loose will land in Los Angeles.” Today, however, Oregon is the state with the strangest state of mind, which has something to do with its being impeccably progressive: In the series Portlandia, the mention of artisanal lightbulbs might be satirical, but given today’s gas-pumping controversy, perhaps not. On Jan. 1, by the grace of God — or of the government, which is pretty much the same thing to progressives — a sliver of a right was granted to Oregonians: Henceforth they can pump gas into their cars and trucks, all by themselves. But only in counties with populations of less than 40,000, evidently because this walk on the wild side is deemed to be prudent only in the hinterlands, where there is a scarcity of qualified technicians trained in the science of pumping. Still, 2018 will be the year of living dangerously in the state that was settled by people who trekked there on the Oregon Trail, through the territory of Native Americans hostile to Manifest Destiny. Oregon is one of two states that ban self-service filling stations. The other is almost-as-deep-blue New Jersey. There the ban is straightforward, no-damned-nonsense-about-anything-else protectionism: The point is to spare full-service gas stations from competing with self-service stations that, having lower labor costs, have lower prices. Oregon’s Legislature offers 17 reasons “it is in the public interest to maintain a prohibition on the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids” — aka, gasoline, which you put in your car’s “Class 1 flammable liquids tank.” The first reason is: The dispensing of such liquids “by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards.” This presumably refers to the many conflagrations regularly occurring at filling stations throughout the 48 states where 96 percent of Americans live lives jeopardized by state legislators who are negligent regarding their nanny-state duty to assume that their constituents are imbeciles. Among Oregon’s 16 other reasons are: Service-station cashiers are often unable to “give undivided attention” to the rank amateurs dispensing flammable liquids. When purchasers of such liquids leave their vehicles they risk “crime,” and “personal injury” from slick surfaces. (“Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse”; i.e., it rains there.) “Exposure to toxic fumes.” Senior citizens or persons with disabilities might have to pay a higher cost at a full-service pump, which would be discriminatory. When people pump gas without the help of “trained and certified” specialists, no specialists peer under the hood to administer prophylactic maintenance, thereby “endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs.” Self-service “has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities at gasoline stations” without providing — note the adjective — “sustained” reduction in gas prices. Self-service causes unemployment. And “small children left unattended” by novice gas pumpers “creates a dangerous situation.” So there. Oregon’s Solomonic decision — freedom to pump in rural counties; everywhere else, unthinkable — terrified some Oregonians: “No! Disabled, seniors, people with young children in the car need help. Not to mention getting out of your car with transients around and not feeling safe too. This is a very bad idea.” “Not a good idea, there are lots of reason to have an attendant helping, one is they need a job too. Many people are not capable of knowing how to pump gas and the hazards of not doing it correctly. Besides I don’t want to go to work smelling of gas.” The complainers drew complaints: “You put the gas in your car not shower in it princess.” “If your only marketable job skill is being able to pump gas, by god, move to Oregon and you will have reached the promised land.” “Pumped my own gas my whole life and now my hands have literally melted down to my wrists. I’m typing this with my tongue.” These days, civic discourse is not for shrinking violets. To be fair, when Oregonians flinch from a rendezvous with an unattended gas pump, progressive government has done its duty, as it understands this. It wants the governed to become used to having things done for them, as by “trained and certified” gas pumpers. Progressives are proud believers in providing experts — usually themselves — to help the rest of us cope with life. The only downside is that, as Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated, such government, by being the “shepherd” of the governed, can “take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking” and keep them “fixed irrevocably in childhood.”
Back to top Go down


Posts : 9650

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   1/16/2018, 11:41 pm

The shape of things to come Smile

Democrats Score Special Election Upset In Wisconsin GOP Stronghold
Quote :
Donald Trump won the 10th Senate District in Wisconsin handily in 2016.

Democrat Patty Schachtner won a special election for a state Senate seat in Wisconsin on Tuesday, scoring a huge upset victory for her party in a district that President Donald Trump handily captured just over a year ago.

It was the latest in a string of election victories for Democrats since Trump took office, and a sign of hope for the party that the energy from the base and frustration with the president could lead to more wins in November.

With every precinct counted, The Washington Post reported that Schachtner, the chief medical examiner for St. Croix County, won by 9 percentage points.

Republican Sheila Harsdorf had held the seat since 2001, but she left in November to become Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s agriculture secretary. In 2016, Harsdorf won re-election by 26 percentage points, and Trump beat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 17 points. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney won the district in 2012.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   5/23/2018, 4:27 pm

The fact that Trump has so deranged the Left that they now feel the need to stick up for and sympathize with animals such as MS-13 in order to avoid the appearance of agreeing with him is way beyond sick.


Why the Left Won't Call Anyone 'Animals'

By Dennis Prager

May 22, 2018

If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:

"It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.' It's not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path."

Let's begin with the first sentence: "It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.'"

This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, "It's not something we should even have to debate."

Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.

So allow me to debate the assertion.

My view is the antithesis of Dionne's. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an "animal."

Calling the cruelest among us names such as "animal" or any other "dehumanizing" epithet actually protects humans. The word "beastly" exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.

Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if "human" is to mean anything moral -- anything beyond the purely biological -- then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise "human" has no moral being. We should then not retain the word "inhumane." What is the difference between "he is inhumane" and "he is an animal"? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.

Dionne provides his answer at the end of the paragraph: "dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path."

He provides not a single argument or illustration for this truly absurd comment.

Anyone who refuses to "dehumanize" the Nazi physicians -- who, with no anesthesia, froze naked people for hours and then dropped them in boiling water to rewarm them; put people in depressurized rooms where their eardrums burst, driving them out of their minds from pain; rubbed wood shavings and ground glass into infected wounds, etc. -- is, to put it very gently, profoundly morally confused.

What would Dionne have us call those Nazi physicians -- "not nice," "badly flawed," "evil"? Why is rhetorically ostracizing them from the human race "a dangerous path"? He doesn't have an answer because he lives in the left's world of moral-sounding platitudes. Leftism consists almost entirely of moral-sounding platitudes -- statements meant to make the person making them feel morally sophisticated. But based on their relative reactions to the sadists of the MS-13 gangs, I trust Donald Trump's moral compass more than E. J. Dionne's.

It is ever dangerous to use dehumanizing rhetoric on people? Of course -- when it is directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or any other immutable physical characteristic. The Nazis did what they did to Jews and others because they dehumanized them based on their religious/ethnic/racial identity. That's why racism is evil. But why is it dangerous to use such rhetoric on people based on their behavior? By equating labeling the cruelest among us "animals" with labeling Jews "animals," Dionne cheapens the fight against real evil.

I once asked Rabbi Leon Radzik, a Holocaust survivor who had been in Auschwitz, what word he would use to characterize the sadistic guards in the camp. I will never forget his response: "They were monsters with a human face."

Incredibly, Dionne would not agree with him.

Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   6/5/2018, 10:55 am


Miss America is scrapping its swimsuit competition, will no longer judge based on physical appearance

Although I may end up being completely wrong, I will go out on a limb and say that it will not be very long before some "men" insist upon being contestants in the pageant.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   6/11/2018, 7:26 am

One would need to be a completely spineless douche to feel that an apology is necessary in this case.


Twitter CEO Caves To Liberal Backlash, Says He Was Wrong To Eat Chick-Fil-A
2:02 AM 06/11/2018
Peter Hasson | Reporter

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Sunday expressed regret over eating at Chick-fil-A, because of the chicken company’s CEO’s personal views on gay marriage.

Dorsey tweeted a screenshot from his phone that showed a purchase he had made at Chick-fil-A using a mobile application. After a liberal backlash, however, Dorsey apologized for eating at the popular fast food restaurant.

At issue was Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s 2012 support for defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which he described as “the biblical definition of a family.”

“On behalf of the whole LGBTQ community, Jack, kindly boost your head out of your ass.” (Screenshot/Twitter)

“Please delete this or follow up with how much free advertising you’re going to give GLAAD” (Screenshot/Twitter)

Former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien was among those to call out Dorsey for eating at the self-described home of the original chicken sandwich.

O’Brien indicated that Dorsey had sinned by publicly eating at Chick-fil-A during gay pride month. (RELATED: Corporations Becoming New Arbiters Of Public Morality)

“You’re right. Completely forgot about their background.” (Screenshot/Twitter)

“You’re right,” Dorsey conceded. “Completely forgot about their background.”
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   6/11/2018, 7:57 pm

How much fuller of shit can Leftists git?


A Study Researched Rape Culture and Dog Parks
By Katherine Timpf

June 11, 2018 7:16 PM

Helen Wilson insists that her dog-park study may have found some helpful answers for how we handle rape culture among humans.

A paper written by Portland Ungendering Research Initiative’s Helen Wilson claims that dog parks are actually very sexual places where we can learn things about rape culture and “queer performativity.”
Yes — seriously.
Wilson explains the whole thing in her paper, titled “Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon.”
“This article addresses questions in human geography and the geographies of sexuality by drawing upon one year of embedded in situ observations of dogs and their human companions at three public dog parks in Portland, Oregon,” states the paper’s abstract. “The purpose of this research is to uncover emerging themes in human and canine interactive behavioral patterns in urban dog parks to better understand human a-/moral decision-making in public spaces and uncover bias and emergent assumptions around gender, race, and sexuality.”

According to the abstract, the paper asks the questions “What issues surround queer performativity and human reaction to homosexual sex between and among dogs?” and “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?”

The paper “concludes by applying Black feminist criminology categories through which [Wilson’s] observations can be understood and by inferring from lessons relevant to human and dog interactions to suggest practical applications that disrupts hegemonic masculinities and improves access to emancipatory spaces.”
(How’s that for a buzzword salad?)
As noted in an article in the College Fix, Wilson’s paper claims that dog parks are “petri dishes for canine rape culture.”
“They offer a very public view into the ways human companions foster and perpetuate masculinist systems of communal oppression across species and in public spaces,” the paper states. “The cultural norms operating within and upon these spaces form microcultures where acceptable and unacceptable behavior in human communities may be reflected in the way human companions construct their interactions with dogs, particularly in regard to rape culture and queering, and a-/moral interpretations of such behaviors and their human analogues under the assumptions of rape culture.”

“In essence,” Wilson states, dogs parks “become rape-condoning spaces in which human rape culture plays out by the moral permissiveness we extend to animals.”

As for the whole sexuality part of it, Wilson noted that owners were more likely to intervene when they saw two male dogs humping each other than they were when a male dog was humping a female dog — which she interpreted as potential evidence of some sort of internalized bias against homosexuality.
Basically, the whole reasoning behind Wilson’s study is the belief that researching rape culture and sexuality among dogs in parks is a brilliant way to understand more about rape culture and sexuality among humans. This is, of course, idiotic. Why? Because humans are not dogs. That’s right: In case you haven’t noticed, there are quite a number of measurable differences between dogs and people, and the way that dogs interact with other dogs is actually quite different than the way that people interact with each other.
To be fair, as Reason’s Robby Soave notes, Wilson was at least up-front about the limitations of her study. For example: She admits she has no way of knowing whether or not any given instance of dog-humping actually constituted rape:
“It is difficult if not impossible to ascertain when canine sexual advances are un/wanted, or when they are rapes rather than performances of canine dominance, which introduces considerable unavoidable ambiguity in my interpretations of this variable,” she writes.
No kidding.
Still, Wilson insists that her study may have found some helpful answers for how we handle rape culture among humans in our human society:
By publicly or otherwise openly and suddenly yelling (NB: which was also effective at stopping dog rape/humping incidents) at males when they begin to make sexual advances on females (and other males in certain non-homosocial contexts), and by making firm and repeated stands against rape culture in society, activism, and media, human males may be metaphorically “shocked” out of regarding sexual violence, sexual harassment, and rape culture as normative, which may decrease rape rates and disrupt rape culture and emancipate rape-condoning spaces.
As I explained earlier, humans generally behave much differently than dogs.

In other words: Wilson believes that we may be able to “shock” men out of perpetuating rape culture the same way a yelling owner can “shock” his or her dog out of humping another canine. Unfortunately, however, I must say that I don’t believe humans can train each other the same way that an owner can train a dog. For one thing, adult humans don’t really have “owners.” Sure, we have bosses, but we don’t have one single person in our lives whom we rely on for everything from food to being able to use the bathroom. In adult life, there’s absolutely no relationship that comes even close to the dog–owner relationship, because, as I explained earlier, humans generally behave much differently than dogs.

The bottom line: Although it is certainly impressive that Wilson spent 100 hours watching dogs in parks for this study, I really don’t think that her work did anything to advance us as a society.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   7/1/2018, 11:31 am


How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment

Jim Wilson/The New York Times
By Adam Liptak
June 30, 2018

WASHINGTON — On the final day of the Supreme Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm.
The court’s five conservative members, citing the First Amendment, had just dealt public unions a devastating blow. The day before, the same majority had used the First Amendment to reject a California law requiring religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide women with information about abortion.
Conservatives, said Justice Kagan, who is part of the court’s four-member liberal wing, were “weaponizing the First Amendment.”
The two decisions were the latest in a stunning run of victories for a conservative agenda that has increasingly been built on the foundation of free speech. Conservative groups, borrowing and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns.

“The right, which had for years been hostile to and very nervous about a strong First Amendment, has rediscovered it,” said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University.


It seems as if the Lefties think that people are getting themselves a little bit too much of that 'freedom' stuff.
And they don't like it.
Poor babies.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   7/20/2018, 8:45 am

Looks like Aunt Esther's supporters are all riled up.


Troubled waters: Maxine Waters fans BURN THE FLAG and protest Trump outside her LA office after she warned right-wing militia were planning to demonstrate there... but they never turned up

Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   7/20/2018, 12:46 pm

In doing my civic duty to help the community (no matter how small the part), I would like to offer a public service announcement, just in case anyone has forgotten that liberals are nuts.


Liberals Send Female Senate Democrats ‘Pee-Proof’ Underwear to Oppose Trump’s SCOTUS Pick
Company behind 'period sex blanket' sends Warren, Gillibrand underwear to block Kavanaugh

BY: Elizabeth Harrington  
July 19, 2018 5:00 am

Liberals are sending care packages to female Democratic senators to oppose Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, including "pee-proof" underwear to use in their opposition to President Trump's court pick.
THINX and Icon, the companies behind the "period sex blanket" and absorbent underwear for bladder leaks, sent "endurance packages" to senators Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.).
"THINX and Icon create underwear that champion and support bodies throughout different stages of life," according to a press release sent by Unbendable Media, a public relations firm. "From first periods to post-menopause and all the little leaks in between, THINX and Icon aim to empower their customers with sustainable solutions, all while breaking taboos around menstruation and bladder leaks."
The companies said they were sending female Democratic senators urine absorbent underwear to "prepare them for hearings and other potential roadblock attempts in efforts to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.

The underwear will help them "protect women's rights" by blocking Kavanaugh's appointment, according to the press release.
The "Endurance Packages" include one pair of Icon "moderate absorbency underwear," which holds between six and eight teaspoons of urine. A pair of Icon's Hi-Waist underwear retails for $39. The company explains how the product works: "Pee goes in. You feel dry. No leaks. No smell. Rinse. Repeat."
The care packages for Warren, 69, and Gillibrand, 51, also included a water bottle to "keep the senators hydrated" and a protein bar to "keep the senators nourished."
Icon said it is "absolutely critical" the senators wear the company's pee-proof underwear when opposing Kavanaugh late into the wee hours.
"It's unclear how long SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing will last, but we know that it is absolutely critical for our Senators to do everything possible to prevent the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice who would roll back women's rights and undermine women's health," said Kejal Macdonald, Icon's vice president of marketing.
"That's why we're sending our absorbent, odor-free underwear to all of the women in the Senate, so that they can do everything possible to stop this nomination and protect our rights," Macdonald said.
"Icon and THINX believe in empowering every body, and that includes empowering women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health," said Icon and THINX CEO Maria Molland Selby.
Icon says its products are intended for women who experience bladder leaks, which the company pins at one third of American women.
"Launched in 2015 by the same team behind THINX's period-proof underwear products, Icon's innovative, absorbent underwear are soft, breathable and machine washable," according to the press release. "Every pair of Icon sold helps fund life-changing surgeries for women in developing countries."
THINX also sells "period blankets" for $369, or a "sex blanket for people with periods."
"No hot mess, no stress," the company says. "One side features our signature 4-layer tech to absorb fluids while you play, the other is crafted with plush satin (perf for cuddling) and features a v-inspired pattern in red stitching (low-key #periodpride)."
The period sex blankets are currently sold out.
Aside from period underwear and blankets, the company also sells a "Real Menstruating Human T-shirt" for $34.
THINX also publishes a feminist blog, with headlines such as, "The Great Barrier Queef: Diving Deep Into The Vagina Fart," "How to Make DIY Tampon Earrings," "Creating Space for Black Women to be Period-Proud," "I Don't Like Period Sex, Am I A Bad Feminist?" and "Period Reflections… with my Dad."
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6384

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   Yesterday at 4:54 pm

Apparently, liberals have found their new slogan.
Good luck with that.


Gov. Andrew Cuomo gave an impassioned speech Wednesday by knocking President Donald Trump over his comments and policies toward women.
Then Cuomo was stung by his own comments as he derided Trump when he said,

"We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great."
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: What the Left Did Last Week   

Back to top Go down
What the Left Did Last Week
Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: