Remember when Tucker Carlson defended a teacher who gave a lap dance to her 15-year-old student?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2022, 08:40:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Address That Must Not be Named)
  Remember when Tucker Carlson defended a teacher who gave a lap dance to her 15-year-old student?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Remember when Tucker Carlson defended a teacher who gave a lap dance to her 15-year-old student?  (Read 1149 times)
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2022, 12:26:15 AM »

"I think LGBTQ people are groomers but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol" is on more or less on the same level as "I think Mexicans are lazy but it's just, like, my opinion bro lol".

You can make the claim if you REALLY want to, but it's an insanely stupid idea to do so unless you're bringing the receipts. A certain somebody who shouldn't be named is going to end up infracted, rightfully so, and then whine and whine and whine about it.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,563
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2022, 12:26:51 AM »

I really hate the term grooming. It makes perfectly positive behaviour seem bad. Forming a positive relationship with a child is GOOD. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is BAD. Most people who form positive relationships with children are NOT pedophiles. Can we please distinguish here?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,012
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2022, 12:33:50 AM »

I really hate the term grooming. It makes perfectly positive behaviour seem bad. Forming a positive relationship with a child is GOOD. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is BAD. Most people who form positive relationships with children are NOT pedophiles. Can we please distinguish here?

In American English, the word "groomer" is entirely and exclusively used in the sexual abuse contest. That's not always the case for "groomed" but it is for "groomer," which is the nasty word used by the repeat offender on this thread.
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2022, 12:48:11 AM »

I really hate the term grooming. It makes perfectly positive behaviour seem bad. Forming a positive relationship with a child is GOOD. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is BAD. Most people who form positive relationships with children are NOT pedophiles. Can we please distinguish here?

In American English, the word "groomer" is entirely and exclusively used in the sexual abuse contest. That's not always the case for "groomed" but it is for "groomer," which is the nasty word used by the repeat offender on this thread.

To be fair, it's also used to mean somebody who cuts and brushes hair, basically a hairstylist, for animals like dogs and horses. For humans, yeah, you're right.
Logged
Unwarranted Self-Victimizer
theflyingmongoose
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,048
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2022, 01:00:35 AM »

I really hate the term grooming. It makes perfectly positive behaviour seem bad. Forming a positive relationship with a child is GOOD. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a child is BAD. Most people who form positive relationships with children are NOT pedophiles. Can we please distinguish here?

In American English, the word "groomer" is entirely and exclusively used in the sexual abuse contest. That's not always the case for "groomed" but it is for "groomer," which is the nasty word used by the repeat offender on this thread.

To be fair, it's also used to mean somebody who cuts and brushes hair, basically a hairstylist, for animals like dogs and horses. For humans, yeah, you're right.

Famed equestrian DeadPrez
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2022, 01:15:42 AM »

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.
I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,392
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2022, 01:26:52 AM »

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.
I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

So supporting candidates who want to overturn democratic election results doesn't make you a fascist, but calling those supporters fascists does make you a fascist? WTF kind of logic is that?
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2022, 01:28:58 AM »

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.
I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people are terrorists are traitors cause they support a different party then them are indeed fascists . Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

So supporting candidates who want to overturn democratic election results doesn't make you a fascist, but calling those supporters fascists does make you a fascist? WTF kind of logic is that?

I said if they called them terrorists or traitors though edited to make it more clear
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,392
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2022, 01:35:36 AM »

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.
I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people are terrorists are traitors cause they support a different party then them are indeed fascists . Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

So supporting candidates who want to overturn democratic election results doesn't make you a fascist, but calling those supporters fascists does make you a fascist? WTF kind of logic is that?

I said if they called them terrorists or traitors though edited to make it more clear

Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists? He said that people who support candidates that want to overturn election results were fascists.
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2022, 01:36:37 AM »


Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

You just made a blanket statement statement implying that a political party being the main opposition party automatically means that that party isn't a terrorist or traitor party. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that's what you did.

So if I take your post that you just made, and apply it to some country who's main opposition party is literally the We Want To Commit Terrorism Party, or the Literally Anti-Democracy Party, you might be right that the voters for that party aren't terrorists or traitors necessarily / automatically, but they're most certainly pro-terrorism, anti-democracy, terrorism enablers and fascism-enablers.

Would you like to re-word your post to make more sense, or do you want to settle for just being right only on a technicality? Sometimes people do not add "enablers" or "supporters" to the words "terrorist" and "traitor" and therefore you're technically correct.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2022, 01:38:37 AM »

If you want to say neither should be allowed, fine.
I'm maybe in the minority but I'm not 100% okay with this. People should be able to accurately or semi-accurately describe people using adjectives and labels on this forum. If somebody is a Republican and you call them a fascist, that might be a little too far, but if they're a Republican cheering on people who want to overturn democratic election results, calling them a fascist should absolutely be allowed because that's an accurate description. I would prefer if the moderators of this forum refrain from turning it into a safe space for anti-democracy insurrectionists.

When and if Schumer, Newsom and Tlaib start advocating for overturning election results, it should also be okay to call the red avatars that cheer them on fascists as well.

Ok fascist

Trolling doesn't suit you very well.

Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people are terrorists are traitors cause they support a different party then them are indeed fascists . Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

So supporting candidates who want to overturn democratic election results doesn't make you a fascist, but calling those supporters fascists does make you a fascist? WTF kind of logic is that?

I said if they called them terrorists or traitors though edited to make it more clear

Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists?

He has said before it is fair to call anyone who votes Republican terrorist enablers before
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2022, 01:39:38 AM »


Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

You just made a blanket statement statement implying that a political party being the main opposition party automatically means that that party isn't a terrorist or traitor party. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that's what you did.

So if I take your post that you just made, and apply it to some country who's main opposition party is literally the We Want To Commit Terrorism Party, or the Literally Anti-Democracy Party, you might be right that the voters for that party aren't terrorists or traitors necessarily / automatically, but they're most certainly pro-terrorism, anti-democracy, terrorism enablers and fascism-enablers.

Would you like to re-word your post to make more sense, or do you want to settle for just being right only on a technicality? Sometimes people do not add "enablers" or "supporters" to the words "terrorist" and "traitor" and therefore you're technically correct.

Actually those nations where that is true are literally not democracies.
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2022, 01:44:01 AM »


Its not trolling to say people who believe that tens of millions of people who support a different party then them are fascists. Saying you can't vote for the main opposition party without being a terrorist or a traitor is authoritarianism 101 and these people cannot seriously claim they care about democracy.

You just made a blanket statement statement implying that a political party being the main opposition party automatically means that that party isn't a terrorist or traitor party. I know that's probably not what you meant, but that's what you did.

So if I take your post that you just made, and apply it to some country who's main opposition party is literally the We Want To Commit Terrorism Party, or the Literally Anti-Democracy Party, you might be right that the voters for that party aren't terrorists or traitors necessarily / automatically, but they're most certainly pro-terrorism, anti-democracy, terrorism enablers and fascism-enablers.

Would you like to re-word your post to make more sense, or do you want to settle for just being right only on a technicality? Sometimes people do not add "enablers" or "supporters" to the words "terrorist" and "traitor" and therefore you're technically correct.

Actually those nations where that is true are literally not democracies.

Okay, so the argument you are now making is "if a political party is the main opposition party in a legitimate democracy, they are automatically not a terrorist or traitor party".

Without explaining WHY that is the case, it doesn't really seem like a good argument to me at all. What exactly is it that you're claiming happens in a legit democracy that automatically prevents the main opposition party from being / becoming a terrorist or traitor party?
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2022, 01:46:27 AM »
« Edited: September 23, 2022, 01:59:10 AM by T'Chenka »


Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists?

He has said before it is fair to call anyone who votes Republican terrorist enablers before

Depending on the voter, they are either terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers, yes. At least, modern 2021 / 2022 Republicans. I'm not speaking about Republicans from any era, I'm talking about the current version of the party.

I'm not making a partisan argument based on my feelings or political leanings, I'm making an argument based on the facts.

EDIT - to be extra clear, I feel this way about modern Republican voters being fascists or fascist-enablers, but the reason that I also am willing to use the description "terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers" is because of the actions that the Trumpian wing of the GOP are willing to potentially take, including the very real possibility of another January 6th incident happening on either a federal or state level. The evidence STRONGLY suggests that January 6th was not a "one and done" situation and that some of the more hardcore MAGA Republicans, if properly motivated, would be willing to do something like that again without any hesitation whatsoever.

Trump in particular has made several threats implying that he will call on his mob if he is held accountable for his actions, and yet MANY Republican lawmakers enable him by continuing to support him and not denouncing his actions. If you vote for your local congressman, and he's willing to enable Trump and his insurrection army, you are enabling somebody who is enabling a terrorist mob leader. That's just a factually correct statement.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2022, 01:53:15 AM »


Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists?

He has said before it is fair to call anyone who votes Republican terrorist enablers before

Depending on the voter, they are either terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers, yes. At least, modern 2021 / 2022 Republicans. I'm not speaking about Republicans from any era, I'm talking about the current version of the party.

I'm not making a partisan argument based on my feelings or political leanings, I'm making an argument based on the facts.

It is not based on facts at all. Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian
Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2022, 02:06:31 AM »


Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. 

Well, if you vote for the 2022 Republican Party based on your support of their policies on taxes, abortion, education, etc, but despite the fascist actions of some of the party's leadership (Trump especially and DeSantis to a smaller extent) and the party's unwillingness to denounce Trump and his terrorist insurrection and threats of further anti-democracy terrorist mob actions, then you are choosing to enable GOP congresspeople who are enabling fascist GOP leaders and enabling Trump who is willing to cause mob terrorism. You don't necessarily WANT that to happen, but you are willing to enable it as a tradeoff in order to get the policies you want, which you view overall as more important than not enabling fascist actions by several GOP lawmakers and mob violence by Trump.


Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

Nobody is saying you literally cannot vote for them. People are saying that voting for them is morally unacceptable when you factor in the implications of that vote.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,332


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: 2.09

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 23, 2022, 02:08:52 AM »


Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. 

Well, if you vote for the 2022 Republican Party based on your support of their policies on taxes, abortion, education, etc, but despite the fascist actions of some of the party's leadership (Trump especially and DeSantis to a smaller extent) and the party's unwillingness to denounce Trump and his terrorist insurrection and threats of further anti-democracy terrorist mob actions, then you are choosing to enable GOP congresspeople who are enabling fascist GOP leaders and enabling Trump who is willing to cause mob terrorism. You don't necessarily WANT that to happen, but you are willing to enable it as a tradeoff in order to get the policies you want, which you view overall as more important than not enabling fascist actions by several GOP lawmakers and mob violence by Trump.


Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

Nobody is saying you literally cannot vote for them. People are saying that voting for them is morally unacceptable when you factor in the implications of that vote.

Name any major politician who has been charged with terrorism or treason by the DOJ let alone convicted cause so far that has not happened. If you want to call people these things without being an authoritarian than at the very least cite the cases where these politicians have been charged with those crimes.



Logged
T'Chenka
King TChenka
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,137
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 23, 2022, 02:18:30 AM »


if you vote for the 2022 Republican Party based on your support of their policies on taxes, abortion, education, etc, but despite the fascist actions of some of the party's leadership (Trump especially and DeSantis to a smaller extent) and the party's unwillingness to denounce Trump and his terrorist insurrection and threats of further anti-democracy terrorist mob actions, then you are choosing to enable GOP congresspeople who are enabling fascist GOP leaders and enabling Trump who is willing to cause mob terrorism. You don't necessarily WANT that to happen, but you are willing to enable it as a tradeoff in order to get the policies you want, which you view overall as more important than not enabling fascist actions by several GOP lawmakers and mob violence by Trump.


Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

Nobody is saying you literally cannot vote for them. People are saying that voting for them is morally unacceptable when you factor in the implications of that vote.

Name any major politician who has been charged with terrorism or treason by the DOJ let alone convicted cause so far that has not happened. If you want to call people these things without being an authoritarian than at the very least cite the cases where these politicians have been charged with those crimes.


Hundreds of Trump's rabid supporters have been charged with violent insurrection. I don't know the legal name of the crime... I don't think "violent insurrection" is the legal term for what the judge sentenced them for, but it's definitely a form of terrorism.

We all know that Trump aimed all of the insurrectionists at congress... just listen to his January 6th speech. He hasn't been charged criminally, but he clearly aimed his mob and members of his mob HAVE been charged.

That takes care of "terrorist". As for "fascist"... it isn't a crime to be a fascist. The evidence that several Republicans including Trump, Mastriano, Taylor Greene, Boebert etc wanted to turn overturn the 2020 election and may very well attempt to disrupt democracy in 2024 is ALL OVER the media and the internet, and we all know about it. Asking me to provide evidence of that is silly, but if you insist, there are hundreds of threads in US General Discussion with links in the OPs which can show you evidence of this.

One thing I'd like to note as well... you've been going hard on the whole "you can't prove it's true unless a judge said so" thing this week. That's broadly not how political definitions work. If I go to a political rally and watch a guy on stage give a speech about how Trump needs to mobilize his "army" to storm congress on January 06 2025 to ensure the election is certified in his favour, I wouldn't need a court case and a judge to tell me that the guy standing on the stage is a fascist, even if it WAS illegal to be a fascist and he COULD be charged as one. It's just common sense to know that he is one.
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 23, 2022, 07:05:03 AM »

What the hell happened to this thread?

And yes, like it or not, Tucker is right that this is the absolute dream of many a teenage boy.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,603
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2022, 09:29:55 AM »


…that’s like textbook bigotry, and is an evil thing to believe.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,603
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 23, 2022, 09:38:58 AM »

It is not based on facts at all. Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

You are getting really hung up on the word “can’t”.

We are not calling for you to be arrested for voting Republican. We are making a statement about your moral character.

Calling you a mean name is not authoritarianism by any stretch of the imagination.

You do not know what authoritarianism is.
Logged
Discount $15 Crudité Darthpi
darthpi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 23, 2022, 10:17:59 AM »

The context that is missing from this entire conversation is that a lot of people believe it is morally justifiable to violently attack or even murder child sex predators due to the threat they pose to children. When you falsely slander a group of people as engaging in systemic child sex predation you are, implicitly, justifying violence against that group. This is why we're seeing bomb threats at children's hospitals, and if this s*** continues to escalate then I suspect at some point we're going to be seeing assassinations of doctors and/or pogroms against trans people.
Logged
Discount $15 Crudité Darthpi
darthpi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 23, 2022, 10:25:42 AM »
« Edited: September 23, 2022, 10:29:48 AM by Discount $15 Crudité Darthpi »


Okay, but when did T'Chenka say that all Republicans were terrorists?

He has said before it is fair to call anyone who votes Republican terrorist enablers before

Depending on the voter, they are either terrorist-enablers OR the enablers of terrorist-enablers, yes. At least, modern 2021 / 2022 Republicans. I'm not speaking about Republicans from any era, I'm talking about the current version of the party.

I'm not making a partisan argument based on my feelings or political leanings, I'm making an argument based on the facts.

It is not based on facts at all. Someone voting for a party based on their support of their policy on taxes, abortion, education etc does not make them a terrorist enabler one bit. Also saying in a democracy that you can't vote for one of the two main parties is by definition authoritarian

No one is saying you can't vote for Republicans, we're just saying that doing so is a deeply morally bankrupt and regrettable choice. People are allowed to make those sorts of choices!
Logged
Sinemafan
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,611
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2022, 10:37:03 AM »

When news comes out about some young teacher sleeping with one of her students, every normal male's reaction is "Where were these teachers when I was in high school?" Tucker is popular because he says what we think.
Logged
Discount $15 Crudité Darthpi
darthpi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,062
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -6.87

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 23, 2022, 10:44:46 AM »

When news comes out about some young teacher sleeping with one of her students, every normal male's reaction is "Where were these teachers when I was in high school?" Tucker is popular because he says what we think.

Ask a parent how they would feel about a teacher having sex with their son. I don't think the reaction would be "Wow that's awesome!"
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 12 queries.