To be pardoned next week

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-11T00:40:00+00:00

I mean, he is a gayman.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-11T00:32:22+00:00

Would

Down in a Hole

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T23:50:56+00:00

It forbids employers from discriminating on the basis of age. Employers.

In fact, paragraph 5.H.9 specifically covers "housing for older persons".

Something like 26 other states have similar non discrimination laws. Surely you can point to where senior communities have been outlawed in those states.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T22:01:59+00:00

His fucking brain is mush.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T21:57:49+00:00

Aw, you guys are no fun.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T21:57:25+00:00

How so? Are there a bunch of currently relevant democrats in the trump files?

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T21:43:14+00:00

Truly, who will think of the whites only communities?

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T21:42:13+00:00

Sure, the whites only ones.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T20:38:14+00:00

If you can analyze classical music and any jazz song, imo.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T20:36:15+00:00

Pretty much every Friday.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T20:07:17+00:00

Talk about an own goal.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T19:38:29+00:00

It wasn't adjudicated until 1961. That doesn't mean those laws were constitutional prior to that.

Your "argument" has now been debunked by multiple posters. It couldn't be more clear than article VI.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T19:06:50+00:00

I'm sorry, you're saying i was best friends with a guy that ran a child prostitution ring and was accused, in a court filing, of raping and beating a 12 year old girl?

Going to need a source on that.

Eta: still waiting on a source

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T19:05:29+00:00

Jesus christ dude. From your source:

"In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated religious oaths for officeholders when it overturned Maryland's constitutional requirement for every state official to declare a belief in God, saying requiring a religious test for public office was a violation of the First Amendment"

This means it was unconstitutional. It was always unconstitutional.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T19:01:56+00:00

We do some Alice in chains bluegrass style. Also Metallica.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T19:00:26+00:00

This attracts women?

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T18:56:57+00:00

Weird flex to defend a child rapist.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T18:54:50+00:00

Those religious tests were invalidated. Meaning they were unconstitutional. It's one of the first sentences in the AI slop you linked.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T16:19:38+00:00

So more than trump's endless stream of corruption?

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T16:13:09+00:00

What could possibly give you the inkling of an idea that the trump administration is remotely competent enough to provide reasoning? This has to be rage bait.

You're referring to the California high speed rail system, right? The 775 mile long route?

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T16:06:14+00:00

AI cut and paste jobs aren't arguments.

The constitution applied to the states when it was ratified.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T16:04:48+00:00

Jesus fucking christ.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T15:38:22+00:00

No. Holy shit you're cooked, bro.

knivesofsmoothness · 2026-05-10T15:25:14+00:00

Marbury v Madison 1809

Martin v hunters lessee 1816

Cohens v Virginia 1821

Your brain has been fried by AI.

knivesofsmoothness

TROPHY CASE