PM me $4.99 a month and I will continue my fight to bring back David [chat] Pumpkins
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
As Alexandra Starr reported for NPR last year, a law was passed in 2000 to grant automatic citizenship to children adopted by U.S. parents. But the law "only covered future adoptees and those 18 or younger," Starr reported. "One of the people who didn't make the age cut-off was Adam Crapser."
I can't believe that wasn't already the law
Given how anti-immigrant the GOP is, I'm not surprised. There would be rhetoric about "anchor adoptions" and "jumping the line" and shit like that. I mean, they are the ones who were turning away children from Central American countries, so...
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Some of you who I like are shitting on survivalists in the election thread and we're gonna have words.
Maybe you can fashion that shit into a useful hat or cooking implement
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+1
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
i like how this jackass in the meeting sometimes asked if i created something when a thing is fucked up with an accusing glare
dude, i started working on the system ONE WEEK AGO. no, i didn't create how we sold gift cards which we've done for uhm all the 6-7 years we have had the software??!??!?
stop acting like it's my fault!
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
adoptive parents can just decide they dont want the kids anymore and dump them on foster care? im pretty sure biological parents don't get to do that. seems kinda messed up that there wouldn't be criminal repercussions.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
about the kitten needs to have just a big fat spoiler tag over it or something so I don't have to read it and immediately assume the worst and get massively depressed
i will risk it all to check for you
DUE it's ok we're all going to be ok
We took her back to the vet, she's not ill thankfully, just picky. We tried to heat it up and it worked like a dream. So hopefully she will be good from on.
Some of you who I like are shitting on survivalists in the election thread and we're gonna have words.
Don't worry, you're one of the good ones... erm, wait. I have many friends who are survivalist! Umm... uhh... Look, if they would just act like normal, decent people...
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
i like how this jackass in the meeting sometimes asked if i created something when a thing is fucked up with an accusing glare
dude, i started working on the system ONE WEEK AGO. no, i didn't create how we sold gift cards which we've done for uhm all the 6-7 years we have had the software??!??!?
stop acting like it's my fault!
I was harsh about that in a meeting recently
"Did I get what done? Oh, the thing you sent me Sunday night?. No, it's Tuesday morning, I haven't done that."
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Some of you who I like are shitting on survivalists in the election thread and we're gonna have words.
Don't worry, you're one of the good ones... erm, wait. I have many friends who are survivalist! Umm... uhh... Look, if they would just act like normal, decent people...
SOME OF US DO MAN!
I'm just saying just because I may or may not have and/or grow heirloom vegetables it doesn't fucking mean I'm voting for Hitler Jr.
If Tube can crack the whip on peeing in a urinal this should be right up his alley.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
I can't believe they've been allowed to hold up a nom for, what, a whole fucking year?
it's infuriating. what's the longest a Supreme Court seat has sat empty in the past?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
New plan is not to confirm anyone caus there are too many people on the supreme court
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
i like how this jackass in the meeting sometimes asked if i created something when a thing is fucked up with an accusing glare
dude, i started working on the system ONE WEEK AGO. no, i didn't create how we sold gift cards which we've done for uhm all the 6-7 years we have had the software??!??!?
stop acting like it's my fault!
I was harsh about that in a meeting recently
"Did I get what done? Oh, the thing you sent me Sunday night?. No, it's Tuesday morning, I haven't done that."
I had that same thing. Two weeks ago on a Monday our client sent out this request for us to quote a fuckton of software for another company, which already sucks but hey we get the commission.
Management held it till Friday and sent it to me, then asked me the following Monday if it was done. It takes like three weeks for our company to investigate a quote.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
See, I thought this was the strategy all along... they stall on the nomination until they see who the next president is. If it's a Democrat, they confirm him. If it's a Republican, then they don't.
we use it when we sit outside watching the kids, to listen to music from our phones
one time we listened to tunes while sipping wine on the back porch in the evening
so I guess, enjoying music while out and about?
ALSO it comes with an adorable fucking floaty device you can put it in, so you can listen to music in the pool or whatev
also because they are waterproof you can use in the shower as well
i have a UE Boom 2 it is loud
Is tempting but I have a sound system out by my pool already which I can hear if I am in the shower -- I mean my neighbors will probably have to hear it too but maybe they will like it.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
I can't believe they've been allowed to hold up a nom for, what, a whole fucking year?
it's infuriating. what's the longest a Supreme Court seat has sat empty in the past?
391 days
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
See, I thought this was the strategy all along... they stall on the nomination until they see who the next president is. If it's a Democrat, they confirm him. If it's a Republican, then they don't.
If it's a Dem though can't the Dems just stall and be like lol fuck you. Dems in the senate can stall just as well as the Pubs right?
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+1
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Preach I have had many a freeze dried meal and only like 15% of them have made me want to kill myself.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
I can't believe they've been allowed to hold up a nom for, what, a whole fucking year?
it's infuriating. what's the longest a Supreme Court seat has sat empty in the past?
391 days
are you answering my first or second question
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
i like how this jackass in the meeting sometimes asked if i created something when a thing is fucked up with an accusing glare
dude, i started working on the system ONE WEEK AGO. no, i didn't create how we sold gift cards which we've done for uhm all the 6-7 years we have had the software??!??!?
stop acting like it's my fault!
I was harsh about that in a meeting recently
"Did I get what done? Oh, the thing you sent me Sunday night?. No, it's Tuesday morning, I haven't done that."
I had that same thing. Two weeks ago on a Monday our client sent out this request for us to quote a fuckton of software for another company, which already sucks but hey we get the commission.
Management held it till Friday and sent it to me, then asked me the following Monday if it was done. It takes like three weeks for our company to investigate a quote.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
Take over the senate. Change the rules for cloture on judicial nominees which they have done before. Pass with a majority vote.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
Democrats are probaby going to get the senate, too
*turns around three times, spits*
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
no idk what will happen, but the thought sure makes me hue hue hue
NO NO NO TO THIS MODERATE DUDE, WE DONT WANT TO DO OUR JOBS WAH WAH BUT STILL PAY ME
OH NO NOW WE ALL HAVE TO BECOME TRANS AND GIVE OUR MONEY TO THE POOR OH WHAT HAVE OUR FOOLISH HANDS WROUGHT
+1
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
Take over the senate. Change the rules for cloture on judicial nominees which they have done before. Pass with a majority vote.
I would rather have an 8 seat court than listen to all the whining that would come though.
But after the final presidential debate and, given the strong possibility that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — unless something drastic happens — is this continued refusal to act on the Garland nomination a smart move for conservatives? After all, Garland is seen as a judicial moderate, and Clinton has not committed to renominating him if she wins.
There's a case to be made that if the GOP wants to salvage the most conservative possible Supreme Court in a year that could see not only a Clinton presidential win but a Democratic takeover of the Senate, it should consider Garland.
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
Take over the senate. Change the rules for cloture on judicial nominees which they have done before. Pass with a majority vote.
I would rather have an 8 seat court than listen to all the whining that would come though.
Screw that. Let them whine. Play the damn long game. Taking the court for 30 years. I can survive the bitching and the moaning.
Posts
PM me $4.99 a month and I will continue my fight to bring back David [chat] Pumpkins
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I just recently found out that still exists.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Whaaaaaaaaaat
Does stuff like this work? If so I'll get him to try this first for sure
Maybe you can fashion that shit into a useful hat or cooking implement
dude, i started working on the system ONE WEEK AGO. no, i didn't create how we sold gift cards which we've done for uhm all the 6-7 years we have had the software??!??!?
stop acting like it's my fault!
It's p silly tho
adoptive parents can just decide they dont want the kids anymore and dump them on foster care? im pretty sure biological parents don't get to do that. seems kinda messed up that there wouldn't be criminal repercussions.
DUE it's ok we're all going to be ok
I was harsh about that in a meeting recently
"Did I get what done? Oh, the thing you sent me Sunday night?. No, it's Tuesday morning, I haven't done that."
also because they are waterproof you can use in the shower as well
i have a UE Boom 2 it is loud
You'll totally love this man.
pleasepaypreacher.net
usually I try not to do the political glee thing but
the thought of this group of people refusing to do their jobs, and thus getting a worse outcome for themselves, is p great
SOME OF US DO MAN!
I'm just saying just because I may or may not have and/or grow heirloom vegetables it doesn't fucking mean I'm voting for Hitler Jr.
If Tube can crack the whip on peeing in a urinal this should be right up his alley.
Well, since you brought it up
A b o l i s h C a p i t a l i s m
I can't believe they've been allowed to hold up a nom for, what, a whole fucking year?
it's infuriating. what's the longest a Supreme Court seat has sat empty in the past?
New plan is not to confirm anyone caus there are too many people on the supreme court
I had that same thing. Two weeks ago on a Monday our client sent out this request for us to quote a fuckton of software for another company, which already sucks but hey we get the commission.
Management held it till Friday and sent it to me, then asked me the following Monday if it was done. It takes like three weeks for our company to investigate a quote.
I had to laugh the day after you said how nice the weather was we got the bullshit we had yesterday.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Is tempting but I have a sound system out by my pool already which I can hear if I am in the shower -- I mean my neighbors will probably have to hear it too but maybe they will like it.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
391 days
If it's a Dem though can't the Dems just stall and be like lol fuck you. Dems in the senate can stall just as well as the Pubs right?
idgi
for all intensive purposes he's an american
@desc
*continues putting stickers on everything*
are you answering my first or second question
You assume they will allow someone to be nominated once Hillary Clinton becomes president.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Lolno not done
Take over the senate. Change the rules for cloture on judicial nominees which they have done before. Pass with a majority vote.
Democrats are probaby going to get the senate, too
*turns around three times, spits*
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
no idk what will happen, but the thought sure makes me hue hue hue
NO NO NO TO THIS MODERATE DUDE, WE DONT WANT TO DO OUR JOBS WAH WAH BUT STILL PAY ME
OH NO NOW WE ALL HAVE TO BECOME TRANS AND GIVE OUR MONEY TO THE POOR OH WHAT HAVE OUR FOOLISH HANDS WROUGHT
I would rather have an 8 seat court than listen to all the whining that would come though.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
I'm with the chef in the video, if I have to eat flavorless food in the mad max future, just let me crash a car and go to valhalla.
pleasepaypreacher.net
the fuck gooey
build a wall and make south korea pay for it, I say
Screw that. Let them whine. Play the damn long game. Taking the court for 30 years. I can survive the bitching and the moaning.