Shoot The Breeze

[32andBelow]

if you can’t figure out why comparing a black person to a monkey would be construed as racist, I can’t help you.

He probably is one of these that thinks malaria is the classiest First Lady we’ve had too

 

[bravoindia]

He probably is one of these that thinks malaria is the classiest First Lady we’ve had too

Not at all.

 

[DankVectorz]

you can’t take a joke on an online forum in any fashion without making it to be racist then why are you here. You work in the Newark area I’m sure you’ve heard much worse?

actually no. I don’t know about where you work, but racist jokes aren’t the norm here. And if it is the norm for you, then I point back to post #5,592

 

[ATCJoe85]

Frankly, it seems more like a comparison of two things he thinks are ugly. I agree that comparing a black person to a monkey can be racist, primarily when the comparison is made *because* someone is black. But was he being racist... I'd say no. I think there'd be more ground to say he was if somebody mentioned Michelle Obama and then he sought out a picture of a monkey.

But in all honesty, we all know that image is more representative of 45 than it is Michelle.

 

[Acquired Taste]

edds93 what is your gamer tag for Warzone?

Activison name is Riot Rob#2717313. Probably won't be on until tomorrow or monday though.

 

[ONE]

I don’t need help. And I wasn’t asking for it. If you can’t take a joke on an online forum in any fashion without making it to be racist then why are you here. You work in the Newark area I’m sure you’ve heard much worse? Are you offended by all the shop talk at N90? Or is it just like kindergarten in there and nobody ever says anything that somebody could take as offensive?

"iT's nOt rAcIsT bRo iT's jUsT a PRaNk!!!!"

yeah say that at work to your manager and other black people and see how far your joke gets you lmao

 

[bravoindia]

Wilco.

 

[JTL2ATC]

Activison name is Riot Rob#2717313. Probably won't be on until tomorrow or monday though.

I’ll have to add you and GulfCharlie too. I get sick of duos sometimes.

 

[Dialoutmfer]

Amy Coney Barrett, excellent choice, it was always clear the Republicans were going to try to get a nomination through before the election. You can argue it is hypocritical but that is what Washington does. Did the republicans refuse to vote on Obama’s nomination under similar circumstances? Yes. Why ? Because they had the power to and exercised that power. Did they do the opposite this time ? Yes. Why ? Because they had the power to and are exercising that power. Both parties covet power above all else. To have that power and not use it is something neither party would ever do.

 

[32andBelow]

Amy Coney Barrett, excellent choice, it was always clear the Republicans were going to try to get a nomination through before the election. You can argue it is hypocritical but that is what Washington does. Did the republicans refuse to vote on Obama’s nomination under similar circumstances? Yes. Why ? Because they had the power to and exercised that power. Did they do the opposite this time ? Yes. Why ? Because they had the power to and are exercising that power. Both parties covet power above all else. To have that power and not use it is something neither party would ever do.

ACB says it’s unfair to confirm during an election ???

 

[Schu04]

I’ll have to add you and GulfCharlie too. I get sick of duos sometimes.

Duos suck

 

[Dialoutmfer]

 

[AnyTrafficPleaseAdvise]

ACB says it’s unfair to confirm during an election ???

Don’t point out one party’s hypocrisy without recognizing the other. Joe Biden advocated for the senate to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016, and now he opposes ACB. In 2016 Lindsey Graham opposed confirming Garland, but now he is going to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 4 years later. Both parties suck. They’re only interested in advancing their own interests and getting re-elected. If the democrats controlled the senate in 2016, Garland would be a Supreme Court Justice without question.

 

[DankVectorz]

Don’t point out one party’s hypocrisy without recognizing the other. Joe Biden advocated for the senate to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016, and now he opposes ACB. In 2016 Lindsey Graham opposed confirming Garland, but now he is going to confirm Amy Coney Barrett 4 years later. Both parties suck. They’re only interested in advancing their own interests and getting re-elected. If the democrats controlled the senate in 2016, Garland would be a Supreme Court Justice without question.

the point of that is that confirming a Justice during an election year was perfectly normal until the Republican objection over Garland. Until then no one on either party gave a crap about nominating a justice during an election year. But the Repubs changed the precedent and just a mere 4 years later are arguing the opposite of what they fought so hard for,

 

[bravoindia]

the point of that is that confirming a Justice during an election year was perfectly normal until the Republican objection over Garland. Until then no one on either party gave a crap about nominating a justice during an election year. But the Repubs changed the precedent and just a mere 4 years later are arguing the opposite of what they fought so hard for,

Shoulda replaced Ruth when 44 was president.

 

[CF]

the point of that is that confirming a Justice during an election year was perfectly normal until the Republican objection over Garland. Until then no one on either party gave a crap about nominating a justice during an election year. But the Repubs changed the precedent and just a mere 4 years later are arguing the opposite of what they fought so hard for,

This. Plus the fact that Scalia died in February. RBG died in September, People are literally voting right now. If your argument is that you can’t confirm a Supreme Court justice at the beginning of an election year how the hell do you square that with doing it 6 weeks from the selection.

Shoulda replaced Ruth when 44 was president.

This is the truth. Obama even tried to convince her to retire but it’s her life and her job so she decided to stay and here we are.

 

[DoubleTwo]

Both parties suck, Garland deserved a fair hearing one hundred percent . But as far as what I’ve read his chances of confirmations would’ve been slim regardless looking at history of Justices being nominated in opposite party controlled Senates in election years, so not worth bitching .

 

[32andBelow]

Both parties suck, Garland deserved a fair hearing one hundred percent . But as far as what I’ve read his chances of confirmations would’ve been slim regardless looking at history of Justices being nominated in opposite party controlled Senates in election years, so not worth bitching .

It at least puts all the senators on record. Just blocking it gives 99 other senators a free pas

https://twitter.com/x/status/498008486551506945

 

[Termine]

But as far as what I’ve read his chances of confirmations would’ve been slim regardless

Merrick Garland was the goddamn compromise nominee. Moscow Mitch told Obama "Nominate him, you won't!" (Garland being seen as a solid centrist that the Republicans could get behind) and Obama called his bluff and nominated him. And then McConnell refused to give him a hearing. Not surprising coming from the guy who once filibustered his own bill because the Democrats supported it. Or another time overrode an Obama veto on a terrible bill and then blamed Obama for the outcome.

And now McConnell et al. are ramming through an anti-woman* hardline conservative justice literally before RBG is in the ground and literally after people have started voting in the elections.

*in b4 @PushingTin "But she's a woman! How can she be anti-woman? Ignore her anti-choice positions and her membership in a religious group that was literally the inspiration for The Handmaid's Tale."

 

[32andBelow]

Merrick Garland was the goddamn compromise nominee. Moscow Mitch told Obama "Nominate him, you won't!" (Garland being seen as a solid centrist that the Republicans could get behind) and Obama called his bluff and nominated him. And then McConnell refused to give him a hearing. Not surprising coming from the guy who once filibustered his own bill because the Democrats supported it. Or another time overrode an Obama veto on a terrible bill and then blamed Obama for the outcome.

And now McConnell et al. are ramming through an anti-woman* hardline conservative justice literally before RBG is in the ground and literally after people have started voting in the elections.

*in b4 @PushingTin "But she's a woman! How can she be anti-woman? Ignore her anti-choice positions and her membership in a religious group that was literally the inspiration for The Handmaid's Tale."

Yah but they owned the libs!!