I wood have back in the day. Probably still wood.

She's a beautiful woman.

I don't understand the second sentence in the NYT tweet. What does that even mean and how is it remotely relevant?

Looks like a better looking Megyn Kelly.

YouBet said:

---

She's a beautiful woman.

I don't understand the second sentence in the NYT tweet. What does that even mean and how is it remotely relevant?

---

Dems and their propaganda arms have been trying to say that free speech allows disinformation, and disinformation leads to violence. Therefore, promotion of free speech equates to promoting violence.

20 years ago, there was a sentiment that most agreed with. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That sentiment no longer exists among democrats. They have taken the stance that if they deem what you say to be in disagreement with their views, then they will advocate violence against you.

Throughout all of human history, nothing has been more beneficial to society and people than the free exchange of information. Nothing kills a bad idea faster than allowing it to be spoken. Suppression of speech has always been a net negative to society and to people. Evil regimes will come to power, but it is only in the continued spread of information that they are put down.

Yes, she's already been discussed

TxAgPreacher said:

---

I was thinking this was going go have to do with politics, like she is a liberal, or WEF, or illuminati or something.

Not degenerates drooling over an old woman.

I guess I should have known better.

---

no drool bro...just jack-azz humor. relax and go with it, you'll feel better and live longer.

The wine last night obscured my reading comprehension.

Just amazing that the NYT is openly against free speech.

The NEW YORK TIMES.

YouBet said:

---

She's a beautiful woman.

I don't understand the second sentence in the NYT tweet. What does that even mean and how is it remotely relevant?

---

He didn't have the NYT to tell him what to think