i cant do the super sweet liquers tho

Hahaha

I read Pelican

Creating an atmosphere of Harm does not require Malfeasance.

Ok... now I have to go see what I have besides wine...

old fashioned with a splash of that would be great though

I read pelican and wondered how you liquefy one.

i usually put a splash of amaretto in an old fashioned

Some people are making or buying happy hour bars for squirrels complete with stools and roof.

Big blender. No real trick to it. @Doc

Random @txgho

@txgho so three squirrels walk into a bar?

Is nut discussing

Looks Nuts?

@Zuluzeit Meet Polly. My liquid parrot

So THAT is what liquidate means?

@William Dinan Yes! The bartender says: "Wow, you guys look nuts!"

Not sure if I told my pirate joke here.

<pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel sticking out of his pants>

Bartender: Hey, buddy. You have a steering wheel sticking out of your pants.

Pirate: Aye...and it's drivin' me nuts.

An Auntie Tiffa, Proud Boy in big pants, and a Rabbi walk into a bar.

"the car was fine, except for the nut holding the steering wheel"

Bar tender tells them all it's not funny.

Behind

lol im watching these dc streams

antifa are literally hiding behind the police

i thought they hated the police

They do until they need them

SCOTUS ruling sucks donkey dick

@AOH_Assassin how

I agree, it does. It leaves a lot of issues in the way of abuse for fraud. It also does prevent a state from suing another state for their rights too. I can see both sides, but it's troubling because of how they worded it.

@james j https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/

It directly contradicts SCOTUS precedent on state standing for elections.

States run elections

Right but there is proof of fraudulent votes.

Only citizens in the state can sue

Yeah, but they cannot violate the US constitution.

Exactly

And they did

No there isn’t. There are accusations of fraud not proof @BoxyPunkChick

Michael Farris, constitutional lawyer:

"I am deeply disappointed in tonight’s Supreme Court decision to dismiss Texas’s lawsuit against the four states.

It was dismissed on the sole ground that one state has no standing to complain about unconstitutional actions by officials in other states vis-a-vis presidential elections.

This is directly contradicted by this statement by the Supreme Court in 1983 (Anderson v. Celebrezze):

“Furthermore, in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation. Moreover, the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.”

The legal theory on the merits was clear and correct. Only legislators and not courts and not election officials can change the laws for elections.

There were over 300 lawsuits filed by the left in 2020 to ease ballot security restrictions. They didn’t do this to practice their litigation skills.

We have to organize a significant counter effort to absolutely ensure the integrity of the election process.
This can never happen again.

(I apologize in advance. I cannot answer every question being asked in the thread. I don’t have detailed plans for next steps but be guaranteed that I am going to make a serious effort to do so. Stay tuned.)"

@james j there is proof.

They didn’t , you could posit they violated the state constitution but that’s up their Supreme Court to decide