Uh…we actually believe in God.TXAGFAN said:One party holds themselves up as the moral authority…AgBandsman said:Fear InoculAg said:blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
Nancy Pelosi married somebody who drives drunk and commits insider trading.
Joe Biden is an actual pedophile who touches and sniffs young children.
High moral standing only matters to Republican voters. It's incomparable to what the loons on the left do. They vote for anyone willing to sell their soul to satan.
Lauren Boebert
30,296 Views |
256 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Teslag
"when they go low, we go high"
"deplorables"
"roaches"
To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
which party puts yard signs out to show their purity and virtue?
Listening to the party of KKK Joe try to find moral high ground is rich.
joey boy and those voting for him are racist. Period end of story. He is a well known racist, not to mention a known pedo.
That's just the truth. Repugnant.
joey boy and those voting for him are racist. Period end of story. He is a well known racist, not to mention a known pedo.
That's just the truth. Repugnant.
I am not friends with people that want to tare down the Republic.
sam callahan said:
which party puts yard signs out to show their purity and virtue?
Absolute frauds and hypocrites.
Tolerant and saintly...until "those people" show up on their lawns.
blacksox said:CDUB98 said:
LOL
Number of degrees does not necessarily reflect the intelligence of a person.
But there is often times a correlation, no?
No not with democrats - too many examples
Also many were gained via affirmative action type measures
Back on track: I don't see how Boebert wins. Every time she gains, her opponent gains just a little to stay ahead.
She's lost. I'm pretty sure the House is lost. This country is lost. I'm massively depressed and angry, and I am so, so ****ing done with this whole stupid country.
She's lost. I'm pretty sure the House is lost. This country is lost. I'm massively depressed and angry, and I am so, so ****ing done with this whole stupid country.
Waffledynamics said:
Back on track: I don't see how Boebert wins. Every time she gains, her opponent gains just a little to stay ahead.
She's lost. I'm pretty sure the House is lost. This country is lost. I'm massively depressed and angry, and I am so, so ****ing done with this whole stupid country.
Why do you think the house is lost? Just hang in there.
Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
If I posted anything that even looked like Urban Ag's post defending a pervert and person guilty of sex crimes what do you suppose the replies would look like?blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
Unbelievable.
ETA: Also convenient he didn't mention the pervert was in his MID 20's.
House is not lost good lord you people are insufferable
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
Is there an auto recount if the votes is this close? 100 or so votes out of 300+ thousand. Crazy.
Guilty people, yes.jeremy said:
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
Why do you think it's won?Rockdoc said:Waffledynamics said:
Back on track: I don't see how Boebert wins. Every time she gains, her opponent gains just a little to stay ahead.
She's lost. I'm pretty sure the House is lost. This country is lost. I'm massively depressed and angry, and I am so, so ****ing done with this whole stupid country.
Why do you think the house is lost? Just hang in there.
TXAGFAN said:So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
ALWAYS the victim.
64 votes
This will be a recount
This will be a recount
TXAGFAN said:Guilty people, yes.jeremy said:
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
Oh , look who's dead ass wrong again but talks as if he has any clue wtf he's taking about.
What is the threshold for a recount?
1/2 % by law
Oh he's innocent then? Help me out mr lawyer.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:Guilty people, yes.jeremy said:
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
Oh , look who's dead ass wrong again but talks as if he has any clue wtf he's taking about.
All signs, including his plea and time in jail, say guilty.
File5 said:
What is the threshold for a recount?
Quote:
In Colorado's case, state statute requires a recount "if the difference between the highest number of votes cast in that election contest and the next highest number of votes cast in that election contest is less than or equal to one-half of one percent of the highest vote cast in that election contest."
The recount only happens after a canvass board certifies the original count and must be requested within 35 days of the election.
Losing parties in any election may request a recount at their own expense, regardless of the results' margins. The recount must be requested within 37 days of the election.
In this case it'd be 780 or so votes
Just can't believe the same sort of people who think I should make it my life goal to speak out about what they perceive as grooming and pedophilia by gay people are taking up for an adult man in his 20's who showed his ***** to teenage girls because his wife was a loud mouthed Republican and they liked her tweets.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
ALWAYS the victim.
What am I missing?
TXAGFAN said:Oh he's innocent then? Help me out mr lawyer.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:Guilty people, yes.jeremy said:
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.
Oh , look who's dead ass wrong again but talks as if he has any clue wtf he's taking about.
All signs, including his plea and time in jail, say guilty.
I don't know if he's innocent; nobody will ever know that because that's not a question in our legal system.
What I'm telling you is he could not have done it…but still pled guilty.
TXAGFAN said:Just can't believe the same sort of people who think I should make it my life goal to speak out about what they perceive as grooming and pedophilia by gay people are taking up for an adult man in his 20's who showed his ***** to teenage girls because his wife was a loud mouthed Republican and they liked her tweets.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
ALWAYS the victim.
What am I missing?
Everything.
Nobody's defending him.
Go read Urban Ag's post, lot of excuses.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:Just can't believe the same sort of people who think I should make it my life goal to speak out about what they perceive as grooming and pedophilia by gay people are taking up for an adult man in his 20's who showed his ***** to teenage girls because his wife was a loud mouthed Republican and they liked her tweets.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
ALWAYS the victim.
What am I missing?
Everything.
Nobody's defending him.
usmcbrooks said:Already ruined...she could give it her best shot though.Urban Ag said:She'd ruin your life but man would it be a rideusmcbrooks said:
Double tap.
Are there behaviors in the LGBTQ+ community and allies (like Disney) that we COULD call grooming, like Disney producers saying "I was just, wherever I could, adding queerness. No one would stop me, and no one was trying to stop me." In support of her "not-at-all-secret gay agenda"? Putting on drag and burlesque shows to little children? Behaving lewdly with children at "pride" parades?TXAGFAN said:Just can't believe the same sort of people who think I should make it my life goal to speak out about what they perceive as grooming and pedophilia by gay people are taking up for an adult man in his 20's who showed his ***** to teenage girls because his wife was a loud mouthed Republican and they liked her tweets.TaxLawAg said:TXAGFAN said:So you're defending a mid 20's man who exposed his ***** to women, specifically minors? Just keeping a list for next time someone throws a groomer/pedophile accusation my way for simply existing.Ags4DaWin said:blacksox said:Urban Ag said:To be fair.blacksox said:Fear InoculAg said:That wasn't my question. I don't disagree that it's relevant. I'm asking you what the relevance is. WHY is it relevant?Grapesoda2525 said:Elected officials are public figures. There personal lives become relevant to the public just like celebrities and athletes.Fear InoculAg said:Out of curiosity, what relevance do you believe her husband's criminal record has?Grapesoda2525 said:
Boebert has a GED education level and a husband with a criminal record. Not the kind of people we should want to represent us in congress.
Because this women decided it was a good idea to marry a man carrying a criminal record for flashing his pecker at children. That shows poor decision making. She married a groomer.
He was accused of dropping his deek out at a bowling alley. He claimed he did the finger out the zipper trick. I'm not a snowflake millenial. Dudes did that for laughs (and worse) in the 70's, 80, 90's. The "kids" you cite were 16-17 year old girls. Everyone was apparently drunk.
None of it is acceptable. None of it is good. And, you have no proof he isn't telling the truth. And on a scale of Bill Clinton and Al Franken, it's on the lower end. He didn't molest a child or rape a girl and you know it.
Dude is likely a complete dumbass but quit acting the white knight when your party is literally full of pervs, rapists, groomers, and sex offenders.
He pled guilty to it. Would you plead guilty if you were having a laugh?
People plead guilty to things when they are afraid of getting ridiculously punishing sentences.
What is really appalling is when people don't even get charged for what they do (Biden laptop) or they commit perjury to try to get out of it (Clinton's "it depends on your definition of the word is")
What is even more appalling is that your ilk try to eviscerate people who take responsibility for their actions and turn a blind eye to the horrible sociopaths who don't.
ALWAYS the victim.
What am I missing?
Whatever Boebert's husband did doesn't erase those things, right?
It's weird, I've been gay for decades and never got an agenda.
You want to defend Boebert's husband too or just derail?
You want to defend Boebert's husband too or just derail?
The Innocence Project would like a talk with you...TXAGFAN said:Guilty people, yes.jeremy said:
Lots of people plead guilty to avoid the risk of trial for a more serious charge.
No way I'm defending this dude, because I know nothing about it.