Reply With Quote
LOL at how upset Blake gets every time this crap gets brought up.
Lettuce Gruyere Bacon and Tomato mmmmmmm mmm that's some good eating Add some queso, Italian dressing and Arugula got dang, dog that is good stuff
LOL at how upset Blake gets every time this crap gets brought up.
Trashy ones open the door, let you look the golden act.
Dont be so rigid.
No Im not a mope, last time I checked I have legs arms head etc, maybe you are the mope mate.
Yeah but they are not offering that info, so the banging doors plan is better.
Have you checked?
I wont, I believe him, you dont and seems to need that info asap.
Why did you just make all those assumptions then?
No need to make assumptions, I believe him, but Im confused and I want official do ents on why you changed accounts, why dallasmavericklose is not around anymore, where is Irisshock, what happened to Bruno, and lots of other things.
Indeed.
Of course Sessions would want to over LGBT as sub-human
Sessions’ DOJ argues gay people aren’t protected from discrimination under le VII
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday argued that le VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination, Buzzfeed reports.
The Justice Department, which is not named as a party in the case, filed an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals to argue le VII “does not” ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, le VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination. It does not, as has been settled for decades,” the Justice Department’s brief says.
“Any efforts to amend le VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the brief—filed under Attorney General Jeff Sessions—reads.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/sess...e+Raw+Story%29
knitters, s, Mexicans, potheads, medical mj patients + dispensaries, Sessions gonna them all.
But he didn't say anything about those people's iden ies being confidential.I can see how you are confused.
Not everything in life needs explanation.
But...but, you're melting down.
I still dont see why he's ashamed of his 100k posts. He's got something for his obituary now.
Make your coping mech comment now, Chumpski. You are no more popular than before, sweetie. It's ST, you're just another nut in this big pile.
Is Trump’s transgender ban linked to Tucker Carlson’s spurious claims on child abuse?
Was the president's surprise announcement spurred by Fox News host with a long history of transphobia?
White House actions on Wednesday offered significant credence to the argument that President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to ban transgender individuals from the military is a cynical ploy to play to his base during a time of increasing tumult.
Hours after Trump’s announcement on Twitter Wednesday morning, Fox News host Tucker Carlson was invited to the White House to interview Vice President Mike Pence, a staunch social conservative.
Presumably this interview, to air Wednesday evening on Carlson’s show, will include a discussion of Trump’s latest controversial decision, which has even been criticized by Republicans on Capitol Hill.
But any discussion between Carlson and Pence about the transgender ban in the military is more than a play to advance the White House’s narrative and agenda. It’s also an attempt to legitimize a discriminatory and transphobic ideology.
Just days before being hosted by the White House, Carlson was on Fox News’ airwaves openly linking the transgender community to “child abuse.”
Hosting the president of the anti-LGBTQ group American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) ... Carlson quoted an article by his guest, Dr. Mic e Cretella, that featured this explosive charge:
“Transgender ideology has infiltrated my field and produced large-scale child abuse.”
Cretella told Carlson and his Fox News viewers that transgender adolescents are
“being put on the puberty blockers which essentially castrates them chemically, followed by surgical mutilation later on. This is child abuse; it’s not health care.”
http://www.salon.com/2017/07/26/is-t...n-child-abuse/
That has nothing to do with your assuming the names were confidential.
Of course it does, I dont asume a thing, said it could be classified, maybe confidential, you should mail the White House.
No you said no such thing.No "could" or "maybe" about it.
Who knows, maybe its public info, have you checked?
I asked you, but you said it was confidential.
Then its confidential.
But you didn't check.
No need to check, I believe it, you should too.
Why would I believe you? You lied several times during this conversation.
Search believe in the dictionary, I believe Im telling you the truth, so everything is fine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions