Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
A bipartisan SCOTUS?  Not any more.  On 14 November last year, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern
wrote of Justice Samuel Alito's speech to the conservative Federalist Society the day before:

"Alito abandoned any pretense of impartiality in his speech, a grievance-laden tirade against
Democrats, the progressive movement, and the United States' response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Alito's targets included COVID-related restrictions, same-sex marriage, abortion,
Plan B, the contraceptive mandate, LGBTQ non-discrimination laws, and five sitting Democratic
senators... Flouting his ethical obligations, Alito waded into fierce political debates over public
health during a pandemic, reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, and other issues that routinely
come before his court."

The justice's speech did not go unnoticed in legal circles. "This speech is like I woke up from
a vampire dream," University of Baltimore law professor and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle
wrote. "Unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry. I can't imagine why Alito did this publicly.
Totally inappropriate and damaging to the Supreme Court."

The LA Times' Harry Litman added that this was "as politically partisan a speech as I’ve ever
seen from a justice," adding that Alito's remarks were "arrogant, tendentious, and sloppy."
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 7 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Dānu, Antonio, Dom, Alan V, Thumpalumpacus, skyking, Bucky Ball
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-10-2021, 05:18 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(09-10-2021, 04:44 PM)Percie Wrote:
(09-10-2021, 04:31 PM)Dom Wrote: Every piece of flesh of yours has your DNA. If you cut off your finger, is it a human being?

No...but if you found a finger, you would know it came from a human being.

This worthless little prick has to be the most pathetic troll to date.

It is also "human life".
It has (we know now) stem cells which could form a human being.
It's every bit as much a potential human, as an embryo is.
Test
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Dom
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-10-2021, 04:44 PM)Percie Wrote:
(09-10-2021, 04:31 PM)Dom Wrote: Every piece of flesh of yours has your DNA. If you cut off your finger, is it a human being?

No... but if you found a finger, you would know it came from a human being...

[Image: Screenshot-2021-09-15-at-21-20-13-r-pics...e-hand.png]

So... who does this hand belong to?

[Image: bots-bush-dt-32_article_column@2x.jpg]

                          OR...




[Image: featured.jpg]


         Huh
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
You are talking to an idiot who does not understand that a fetal heartbeat is not a heartbeat and you expect him to understand DNA?

You'd have more luck explaining radar to a cat.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 4 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Bucky Ball, SYZ, Thumpalumpacus, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Yes radar is far above a cat. they are however quite versed in PET scans and CAT scans.
test signature
The following 7 users Like skyking's post:
  • Fireball, Bucky Ball, epronovost, Dancefortwo, Antonio, Dom, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-15-2021, 04:30 PM)Minimalist Wrote: You are talking to an idiot who does not understand that a fetal heartbeat is not a heartbeat and you expect him to understand DNA?

You'd have more luck explaining radar to a cat.

From what I read from someone who is a ultrasound technician the sound doesn't have anything to do with the fetus at all.  It's a noise the machine makes when it's turned on. A little bit like static on an old radio.   I'll try to find where I read it.

ETA:  Here it is. https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-ab...ors-2021-9

Quote:  "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine." Dr. Verma added.Dr. Jennifer Kerns, an OB-GYN and associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, also told NPR that this noise is simply not a sign of a working heart or functional cardiovascular system.


Dr. Kerns also added that this is a term doctors would use to simplify complicated medical discussions with patients - similar to the term tummy ache, rather than gastroenteritis, or dizzy spell instead of vertigo - and should not be used to make laws. 


Likewise, at six weeks post-conception, the correct term is an embryo. 

But "fetus" may have an appeal that the word "embryo" does not, Kern told NPR: "The term 'fetus' certainly evokes images of a well-formed baby, so it's advantageous to use that term instead of 'embryo' — which may not be as easy for the public to feel strongly about, since embryos don't look like a baby," she explains. "So those terms are very purposefully used [in these laws] — and are also misleading."
A number of laws have been crafted to limit access to abortion based upon this false notion of a fetal heartbeat, according to the Guttmacher Institute - but the Texas law is the first to go into effect. 

 
                                                         T4618
The following 4 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dom, Dānu, Antonio, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Quote: But "fetus" may have an appeal that the word "embryo" does not, Kern told NPR


I prefer the term "gob of goo" which I apply uncritically to all republiKKKunts, too.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-15-2021, 04:34 PM)skyking Wrote: Yes radar is far above a cat. they are however quite versed in PET scans and CAT scans.


LOL Good one, Skyking.   

[Image: brian-baumgartner-badumtss.gif]
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Dom, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Do you suppose those five catholick fucks on the supreme court would recuse themselves from this case?

https://nypost.com/2021/09/30/archdioces...buse-case/

Quote:Archdiocese of Newark could pay in ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick sex abuse case: judge

A New Jersey judge ruled Thursday that the Archdiocese of Newark be held financially responsible for abuse claims against a high-ranking Catholic leader, The Post has learned.

The ruling involves accusations that disgraced ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick assaulted a boy in the 1980s — and it could pave the way for victims to get bigger civil court payouts.

In the precedent-setting ruling, District Court Judge Madeline Arleo found that the wealthy institution is “vicariously liable” — responsible simply for employing McCarrick, without necessarily committing any wrongdoing.

“This is huge,” said lawyer Kevin Mulhearn, who is representing the anonymous accuser, known as John Doe.
“It marks the first time in the US that a court has determined that a diocese may be held accountable for the intentional acts of its bishop, without necessarily finding that the diocese itself was negligent.”

Yeah.  Me neither.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-10-2021, 10:31 AM)Percie Wrote: Bet you wouldn't go on like that to a woman who had just suffered an early miscarriage and was devastated by it.

But you people do it all the time.
You cretins tell her that it is the will of God, and all things work according to His will, and she should accept it,
and all things are under His control.

You should mind your own fucking business.
Every woman's circumstance is different and personal to her, and possibly her partner.

But don't get me wrong, genius.
Your snarky comment is too cute by half. Snort.
How very Christian of you.

It is very interesting to look at various cultures both present and historical, and see what their views of infant "personhood" are/were, and the fact that
the gods willed (apparently) that a large percent of babies and children died. In Japan an infant was not considered a person for 30 days after birth, as child mortality rates were very high.
https://anthropology.usu.edu/davidlancys....12.12.pdf
Now the fundy religionists have taken it to such insane extremes, that a microscopic bit of goo is a person.
Test
The following 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • julep, Thumpalumpacus, isbelldl, Dānu, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
In [Harold] Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the SCOTUS will return to the issue of religion in public
places. The question arises in a lawsuit filed by a Christian group after the city of Boston denied
the group’s request to raise its flag – bearing a Latin cross – on a city hall flag pole.

The city, the group contends, routinely allows other groups to use the flag poles, for everything
from the Turkish flag to celebrate “Boston pride” and the observance of Juneteenth. The group
went to court, arguing that the denial of its application violates the First Amendment. Both the
district court and the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled for the city, prompting the
group to come to the Court, which granted review on Thursday.

Former Mayor Martin Walsh said the flag would make it seem like the city was endorsing Christianity
over other religions, which it isn’t supposed to do.

— So another waste of taxpayers' money pushing this ultimately vexatious
   case to the Supreme Court, which should've disallowed the petition.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(09-10-2021, 10:31 AM)Percie Wrote: Bet you wouldn't go on like that to a woman who had just suffered an early miscarriage and was devastated by it.

No, she won't. But people (and I use the word very loosely) of your ilk would totally tell a mother who's lost her actual child that god wanted the child for an angel.

Someone literally told me once that a 2-year-old getting terminal cancer was a LESSON FROM GOD. To the parents. THIS is what you and your ilk are really like and THIS is the sympathy and love you offer your fellow human beings.

So you and the rest like you can take your fake sympathy for mothers, babies and embryos and shove them where even the holy spirit doesn't shine.

Save the hypocrisy and dishonesty for your made-up father figure. Only someone non-existent - or as dumb as many of his followers - would actually fall for it.

PS. You're a vile, LOATHSOME excuse for a human being.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 7 users Like Vera's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Dancefortwo, Astreja, Dānu, Deesse23, Minimalist, Szuchow
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 02:53 PM)Vera Wrote: PS. You're a vile, LOATHSOME excuse for a human being.

^^^^^

This same guy who'd force poor women to carry to term is dead-set against any state-provided assistance to make sure the child is taken care of. He's not pro-life. He'd let the child go hungry if the alternative was using tax money to feed the kid. He'd let the child go homeless rather than surrender a nickel in assistance.

There's his Christianity for ya.
On hiatus.
The following 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Astreja, Deesse23, Minimalist, Szuchow, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 03:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 02:53 PM)Vera Wrote: PS. You're a vile, LOATHSOME excuse for a human being.

^^^^^

This same guy who'd force poor women to carry to term is dead-set against any state-provided assistance to make sure the child is taken care of. He's not pro-life. He'd let the child go hungry if the alternative was using tax money to feed the kid. He'd let the child go homeless rather than surrender a nickel in assistance.

There's his Christianity for ya.

Yep - the "save the unborn babies" crap is just an excuse for grandstanding.  Maybe one in a thousand forced-birthers tries to legitimately help women and their families; the rest are just there so that they can scream abuse and groom and preen and posture on their make-believe moral high ground.

At least when monkeys throw shit you can wash it off.  The evil of forced-birthers can actually get women killed.
The following 2 users Like Astreja's post:
  • Minimalist, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 02:53 PM)Vera Wrote:
(09-10-2021, 10:31 AM)Percie Wrote: Bet you wouldn't go on like that to a woman who had just suffered an early miscarriage and was devastated by it.

No, she won't. But people (and I use the word very loosely) of your ilk would totally tell a mother who's lost her actual child that god wanted the child for an angel.

Someone literally told me once that a 2-year-old getting terminal cancer was a LESSON FROM GOD. To the parents. THIS is what you and your ilk are really like and THIS is the sympathy and love you offer your fellow human beings.

So you and the rest like you can take your fake sympathy for mothers, babies and embryos and shove them where even the holy spirit doesn't shine.

Save the hypocrisy and dishonesty for your made-up father figure. Only someone non-existent - or as dumb as many of his followers - would actually fall for it.

PS. You're a vile, LOATHSOME excuse for a human being.


(10-01-2021, 02:53 PM)Vera Wrote: I literally told me once that a 2-year-old getting terminal cancer was a LESSON FROM GOD. To the parents. THIS is what you and your ilk are really like and THIS is the sympathy and love you offer your fellow human beings.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! 

They do shit like this because they can't square life's horrible tragedies with a loving god so they to do a fancy dance step around it.  If one has been indoctrinated into this convoluted religious mess one doesn't clearly see suffering as a problem, but WE do.  It's a big problem.   The Epicurean Paradox applies to all human suffering.  

[Image: c856c2a76b83fdb8600af5bda50e20543a5af787_hq.jpg]

Your deity hasn't been seen for 2000 years so I guess he's ok with this kind of evil. 



[Image: Starving%2BChild.jpg] 


And by the way, if your god sends down his own kid to be killed, I doubt he's all upset about a few cells the size of a grain of rice being removed.
                                                         T4618
The following 3 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Minimalist, Szuchow, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 11:39 AM)SYZ Wrote: In [Harold] Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the SCOTUS will return to the issue of religion in public
places. The question arises in a lawsuit filed by a Christian group after the city of Boston denied
the group’s request to raise its flag – bearing a Latin cross – on a city hall flag pole.

The city, the group contends, routinely allows other groups to use the flag poles, for everything
from the Turkish flag to celebrate “Boston pride” and the observance of Juneteenth. The group
went to court, arguing that the denial of its application violates the First Amendment. Both the
district court and the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled for the city, prompting the
group to come to the Court, which granted review on Thursday.

Former Mayor Martin Walsh said the flag would make it seem like the city was endorsing Christianity
over other religions, which it isn’t supposed to do.

— So another waste of taxpayers' money pushing this ultimately vexatious
   case to the Supreme Court, which should've disallowed the petition.

You're forgetting that the supreme court isn't a bunch of partisan hacks pushing a stealth religious agenda like some liberal activist judge. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 04:13 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 11:39 AM)SYZ Wrote: In [Harold] Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the SCOTUS will return to the issue of religion in public
places. The question arises in a lawsuit filed by a Christian group after the city of Boston denied
the group’s request to raise its flag – bearing a Latin cross – on a city hall flag pole.

The city, the group contends, routinely allows other groups to use the flag poles, for everything
from the Turkish flag to celebrate “Boston pride” and the observance of Juneteenth. The group
went to court, arguing that the denial of its application violates the First Amendment. Both the
district court and the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled for the city, prompting the
group to come to the Court, which granted review on Thursday.

Former Mayor Martin Walsh said the flag would make it seem like the city was endorsing Christianity
over other religions, which it isn’t supposed to do.

— So another waste of taxpayers' money pushing this ultimately vexatious
   case to the Supreme Court, which should've disallowed the petition.

You're forgetting that the supreme court isn't a bunch of partisan hacks pushing a stealth religious agenda like some liberal activist judge.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Lol. If they allow that, watch the Satanists and the Spaghetti dudes raise flags there, too. Jewish flags, Islamic flags, everyone will have a hay day with this.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 3 users Like Dom's post:
  • Minimalist, Fireball, skyking
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
And then the jesus fuckers will scream "BUT WE DIDN'T MEAN THEM!!!!"
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Dom, Fireball
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 03:21 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 03:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 02:53 PM)Vera Wrote: PS. You're a vile, LOATHSOME excuse for a human being.

^^^^^

This same guy who'd force poor women to carry to term is dead-set against any state-provided assistance to make sure the child is taken care of. He's not pro-life. He'd let the child go hungry if the alternative was using tax money to feed the kid. He'd let the child go homeless rather than surrender a nickel in assistance.

There's his Christianity for ya.

Yep - the "save the unborn babies" crap is just an excuse for grandstanding.  Maybe one in a thousand forced-birthers tries to legitimately help women and their families; the rest are just there so that they can scream abuse and groom and preen and posture on their make-believe moral high ground.

At least when monkeys throw shit you can wash it off.  The evil of forced-birthers can actually get women killed.

... and just wait until their darling little Susie gets knocked-up at fifteen because Daddy and Mommy thought sex-ed is immoral too. They'll be flying to California for a nice three-day "visit" right quick, in many cases.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow, Astreja
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 03:50 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! 

They do shit like this because they can't square life's horrible tragedies with a loving god so they to do a fancy dance step around it.  If one has been indoctrinated into this convoluted religious mess one doesn't clearly see suffering as a problem, but WE do.  It's a big problem.   The Epicurean Paradox applies to all human suffering.  

See, the thing is, how people cope with all the horrors of life doesn't really concern me (even if I might find certain beliefs and practices dumber than others, like, say, communing with ghosts and gathering herbs at midnight in the nude). A neighbour of mine, who died in her eighties, lost both her children - one of them committed suicide as a teenager and the other died of cancer in her thirties. She did have grandchildren and great-grandchildren but this doesn't really make losing both your children easier. She was a seventh-day adventist or something along those lines and you know what, if her faith gave her hope and lessened her suffering, I'm really glad she had it. And if we were to talk and she were to tell me how she'd see them again or something like this, I wouldn't dream of saying "yeah, this is just a comforting story you're telling yourself". The vaaaaaast majority of non-religious people, except for the occasional psychopath, wouldn't dream of it.

However, when people start forcing their own, often misguided, beliefs on others and intruding on their suffering with their, often offensive, coping mechanisms, *this* is what I have zero patience or tolerance for.

I don't think they're being malicious (that woman I mentioned in the previous post certainly wasn't) but in a way it's almost worse - they are totally oblivious/indifferent to the pain and mental peace of others. Often - callously so. That same woman ("cancer is a lesson from god") was telling me my mother has lupus because of something she did in a previous life (she believed in a vile mixture between Xtianity and some "spiritualism" crap that included reincarnation, the worst of both worlds, really). When I asked what lesson is a gang rape victim learning (or what "sin" from a previous life would justify something so horrible) she had no answer.

And that's the thing I truly loathe - people like this seem to be incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of others or truly empathising (nor sympathising) with them. Because that woman had gone through something mildly traumatising she honestly believed that ALL suffering was good for teaching us lessons. And I find this casual indifference towards and failure to understand the suffering of others revolting.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 4 users Like Vera's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Minimalist, Szuchow, Dancefortwo
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Right. My suffering a disabling handicap has taught me a lot. I don't, however, need some random asshole to tell me what the lesson(s) I should garner, based on their combination of their complete inexperience dealing with my issue combined with their just-so story that helps them sleep at night.

To my mind empathy and humility have a strong connection. Those proud enough to spit their own opinions out at the drop of a hat too often seem so proud of their own opinions that they never stop to try and understand what it is their listener is actually suffering, because their opinions or beliefs are more important to themselves that what their listener is actually going through.

It's egotism at its finest, which makes sense when you consider that these folk believe a being powerful enough to create an entire universe gives two shits rubbed together about their little lives of quiet desperation.
On hiatus.
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1443924442925703184

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for COVID-19 despite being vaccinated, the Supreme Court said Friday. The court said the 54-year-old justice has no symptoms.

It’s the first time the court has reported that a sitting justice has tested positive for the virus, although Amy Coney Barrett had COVID-19 last year before she joined the high court.

Kavanaugh was the only one of the nine justices to skip Friday’s ceremonial swearing-in for Barrett, an event that itself was delayed nearly a year because of the coronavirus pandemic.

All the justices were tested in advance of the ceremony. They also had been tested before they met in private on Monday to discuss adding additional cases to their docket. All were negative then, the court said.

It’s unclear whether Kavanaugh will attend the opening of the court’s new term Monday, when the justices will return to the courtroom to hear arguments after an 18-month absence because of the pandemic. Oral arguments scheduled for October, November and December will be in the courtroom but those sessions will not be open to the public. The public will continue to be able to listen to live broadcasts of the arguments.
Is this sig thing on?
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 03:21 PM)Astreja Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 03:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ^^^^^

This same guy who'd force poor women to carry to term is dead-set against any state-provided assistance to make sure the child is taken care of. He's not pro-life. He'd let the child go hungry if the alternative was using tax money to feed the kid. He'd let the child go homeless rather than surrender a nickel in assistance.

There's his Christianity for ya.

Yep - the "save the unborn babies" crap is just an excuse for grandstanding.  Maybe one in a thousand forced-birthers tries to legitimately help women and their families; the rest are just there so that they can scream abuse and groom and preen and posture on their make-believe moral high ground.

At least when monkeys throw shit you can wash it off.  The evil of forced-birthers can actually get women killed.

... and just wait until their darling little Susie gets knocked-up at fifteen because Daddy and Mommy thought sex-ed is immoral too. They'll be flying to California for a nice three-day "visit" right quick, in many cases.

Obviously their daughter/wife/lover is a good girl not a no good slut who shouldn't spread her legs. I would say that hypocrisy of such types is astounding but actually it's merely expected.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Minimalist, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
(10-01-2021, 07:31 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(10-01-2021, 03:21 PM)Astreja Wrote: Yep - the "save the unborn babies" crap is just an excuse for grandstanding.  Maybe one in a thousand forced-birthers tries to legitimately help women and their families; the rest are just there so that they can scream abuse and groom and preen and posture on their make-believe moral high ground.

At least when monkeys throw shit you can wash it off.  The evil of forced-birthers can actually get women killed.

... and just wait until their darling little Susie gets knocked-up at fifteen because Daddy and Mommy thought sex-ed is immoral too. They'll be flying to California for a nice three-day "visit" right quick, in many cases.

Obviously their daughter/wife/lover is a good girl not a no good slut who shouldn't spread her legs. I would say that hypocrisy of such types is astounding but actually it's merely expected.

Exactly. Those *whores* should have to live with the repercussions of their immorality.

Meanwhile, my little Jeannie simply made a bad decision and should be given a do-over, because Reasons™.

Although I have to say from personal experience that Catholic girls make some of the best sinners.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Szuchow, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply

The SCOTUS Chronicles (topical thread)
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Percie
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)