Cursed Political Content

  • Thread starter TexRex
  • 5,723 comments
  • 247,421 views
Joey D
soaking
Click to expand...
Just applying some rationality to religion, for a second...

Soaking is putting it in and leaving it there, only to eventually take it out. Ejaculation may occur at some point between, but that's all fine by the rules.

If putting it in isn't a sin, and taking it out isn't a sin, and even ejaculating isn't a sin, then really there should be nothing sinful about repeatedly putting it in and taking it out again and ejaculating somewhere along the way. It's just soaking at very short intervals.

Thus I have invented the sexual practice of "microsoaking", just for Mormons. You're welcome, guys.
 
how i met your mother barney GIF
 
TexRex
Dilbert guy: "Finger rape his ass and you'll see that any male is violent."
Click to expand...
It took the genius of a mediocre cartoonist to show us that shoving your finger up someone's ass might lead to a violent encounter.
 
Your first mistake: grabbing an image off Google Images that you don't have any permission to use in your official local Republican Party Facebook post.

Your second mistake: not actually looking at the image...

1660860535467.png
 
Last edited:
Admittedly, it looked like hoofprints in the background the first time I scrolled past it.

Derp.
 
Last edited:
McLaren
Read this may also fall under threatening those agencies which tmu, is a felony charge.
Click to expand...
The standard is communicating a serious expression of intent to perpetrate an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group. Awful as it is--and that's pretty ****ing awful--I don't see it as meeting that standard. The threshold is especially high given that it's aimed at state actors in their capacity as state actors, making it political in nature and thus benefitting from the strongest of protections.

It's likely to be lawful, even if it is awful, and there is no exception for stupid, piece of **** mother****ers with chinstrap beards.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for doubleposting.
TexRex
The standard is communicating a serious expression of intent to perpetrate an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group. Awful as it is--and that's pretty ****ing awful--I don't see it as meeting that standard. The threshold is especially high given that it's aimed at state actors in their capacity as state actors, making it political in nature and thus benefitting from the strongest of protections.

It's likely to be lawful, even if it is awful, and there is no exception for stupid, piece of **** mother****ers with chinstrap beards.
Click to expand...
His inability as a state representative to repeal a federal law if elected further adds to the performativity of this publicity seeking tweet if I'm not mistaken.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back