So this is how a cashless society happens.

"Her eyebrows are ------- radar installations."

Someone has a very vivid imagination. . .

I'm surprised no one's commented on the broken English in the meme he reposted.

The pendulum always swings...

Lady G
POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT

Lindsey, you pencil-pushing little ------.
#3 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

i.ytimg.com
#4 | POSTED BY C0RI0LANUS

I volunteer Lady G to lead the assault.
#7 | POSTED BY NIXON

I suspect that Lady G is a "bottom".
#10 | POSTED BY MORRIS

---- that prancing poofter.
#12 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD

^^^ The ladies doth protest too much.

And yet Roberts thinks viewing this court as absolute dogs*^# is inappropriate and "dangerous."

Chief Justice John Roberts was referring to personally directed hostility toward judges and justices, which he described as "dangerous" during a March 17, 2026, appearance at Rice University. While he did not mention any specific individual by name, his remarks were widely seen as a response to recent verbal attacks by President Donald Trump against the judiciary.

Roberts made several distinctions regarding the nature of this hostility:

* Personal vs. Legal Scrutiny: He stated that while criticism of judicial opinions "comes with the territory" and is "healthy," it becomes a "problem" and "quite dangerous" when it shifts from legal analysis to attacking individual personalities.

* Recent Attacks by Trump: The comments followed a series of social media posts by Trump on March 15, 2026, in which he called the Supreme Court a "weaponized and unjust Political Organization" after they struck down his global tariffs. Trump also personally attacked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, calling him "wacky, nasty, crooked and totally out of control".

* Bipartisan Scope: Roberts was careful to note that such hostility is not limited to "any one political perspective," addressing the broader trend of rising threats against the federal judiciary.

"Well, obviously you know best. I mean, he really does need more distractions, eh?

Taking DJT seriously as a threat to the nation isn't being distracted, it's being more careful after learning lessons of the recent past."

After all this time, you still haven't figured out his MO. He's dictating to you which things to focus your energy on in the present moment, even though there's nothing you can do right now about something that might happen in 2028 (if he's even still around by then).

On a related note, some ICE agents have reportedly received emails reminding them that, according to their contracts, they are "eligible" for deployment overseas. So it will be very convenient if they are already at the airport.

'And yet many many people, especially on the left, do not believe him. They simply say, "Well, that's not possible according to the US Constitution. Therefore, he's not going to try."'

Does anyone here know anyone who's actually said this, especially on the left? Honestly, I'd be surprised.

"Or even if he does try, it's not going to work."

Last time he did it in a half-assed way to try to maintain plausible deniability and portray himself as the victim afterwards. Of course, he's been a lot more aggressive in with his second term compared to his first. It's something people should take seriously, but at this point, 2.5 years out, it's basically just a distraction to divert attention away from other things.

"No one should be surprised."

Exactly. Only the freshest noobs who haven't paid any attention to current events until now would be surprised by this.

Trump reminds me a lot of Rush Limbaugh, who took glee at condemning other people as "worthless shreds of human debris" when they died. These people write their own epitaphs.

Must have been a suicide. The only thing that could kill Chuck Norris is if he gave himself a roundhouse kick to the head.

"Damn, Jeff/Bill,
do you have to effing lie about EVERYTHING?"

As far as I can tell, the only reason some of these people post here is because they think they're doing a clever parody of how they perceive "liberals", that they're somehow pwning them by illustrating their "hypocwithy"; but in effect they're acting exactly the regular posters that they loathe. Ditto to many of the partisans on the left here who only exist react to "the other side".

"So yeah, old white dudes, you're good in your black sweats. Until you show up to the riot and throw mortar fireworks at police. That won't go well for you."

People who engage in violence should have the book thrown at them for those acts, but adding on a bogus charge for wearing black is at least as dubious as many of the enhanced 'hate crime' charges that real conservatives have always decried.

No matter which way it's going, the pendulum always swings in the direction of stupid. A pox on all your partisan houses.

Misleading headline. I was expecting something much more gruesome before I opened the thread.

This is just basically the contemporary version of saying "it's the computer's fault" to avoid taking any human responsibility.