Lurker > famfam

just racking up the charges while he was at it, i guess?

ChrisReeve posted...

You could, uh, try to win over more voters by seeing whats important to them and why they wont vote democrat. Crazy thought, I know.

are you under the impression that there are more republican voters than democrat voters?

latinx and hispanic aren't the same thing, so there's a reason to use a different word

abuse of power

did you underpay...?

guess its nice life insurance for my wife? would make her life much easier/better

Insert Bitcoin Wallet Address

its deleted. what did it say

she says she reacts that way because its her way of empathizing. she knows how X feels, so by expressing how it is happening/happened to her, she's saying that she understands how bad X feels

are you dating my wife?

nothing can be said here.

1.) because pregnant people are allowed to work
2.) she isn't obligated to disclose (and its maybe illegal to ask?)

DeepFriedSquid posted...

Office building real estate value has tanked because nobody needs them anymore. Fewer people are driving which means less money being spent on gas. More people are eating at home instead of spending money at restaurants

A lot of people are losing money and they want to go back to the old inefficient way of doing work so they can preserve their wealth

It blows my mind how people cling onto outdated shit just to save themselves. Fossil fuels in particular

so prices are going down due to demand going down? makes sense to me

Aloc posted...

This is how nations fall apart . The population is in mass discontent.

ITP: a terrorist = the population

BuckVanHammer posted...

Ya real gross. Apparently he's clarified it was two 12 year olds in his example but I think we all know how these type of marriages go...

I don't...can you clarify?

MAR10_KarT posted...

Every time I go, I never tend to see the bougie rich or upper middle class crowd there

Honestly, it kind of surprised me because the phone is pretty good for a reasonable price there and I would assume that would appeal to the richer crowd too

why would you assume that richer people would be looking for food on a budget?

do you believe that someone is responsible for breaking the law even if they didn't know what they were doing was a crime?

AlCalavicci posted...

I understand what you're saying, that both rules can't be true at the same time, so the Dems should only have gotten one of those picks. I don't disagree with that.

What I'm saying, is that the first time, McConnell blocked Obama's pick for a year by refusing to hold a hearing due to bullshit "precedent" that didn't exist. He then handed it over to Trump. That was a stolen pick.

The new precedent was set. And he again went against that rule that he created, to steal the next pick. So he once again stole a pick. You can't have it both ways.

If there was any integrity, Dems should have had one of those picks. But Mitch still went through the act of stealing twice based on a precedent he first made up, then chose not to follow.

sure you can. just look at what happened.

solosnake posted...

There needs to be major reform

it would just be struck down

DKBananaSlamma posted...

They sure are >_>

"they"

time for finding out i guess

voldothegr8 posted...

I don't mind the trash talk but she should have done it to a different player, Caitlin did her job and put up 30.

itp: you should only trash talk when people are bad

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


so rich people aren't allowed to spend their money on their friends? or SCOTUS judges aren't allowed to have friends or go on vacations?

what exactly do you propose to do about this?

Vegy posted...

What's the point of giving dese people salaries when dey still get bought? Wasn't dat supposed to stop da bribes lol

Dey should follow da gamefaqs mods example

i mean what salary do you give someone such that they aren't going to want more money?

hockeybub89 posted...

It?

what I had meant was why would it be the case that a straight person in drag would be lgbt

why would it be?

Mr_Karate_II posted...

She didn't touch the jackass, he put his hands on her so she defended herself.

The cops saw it that way too, the jackass instigated it

he touched her first, but he certainly didn't instigate the incident

hockeybub89 posted...

I take it you are against the death penalty then?

I have mixed feelings about it, generally. not that that is relevant here.

i love the "the person is bad so crimes against them are justified' rhetoric

I didn't realize there are consequences of marriage with respect to being able to put money in my roth IRA, and now I'm realizing that I am in an overpayment if I am married but filing separately. So, I think we need to file jointly to avoid a fee

i thought tc was a man of clASS for a second

More like Lauren Boebert (P-P)

did you do the things people associate with that country...

yeah but the libs are trying to genocide white supremacists, which is kind of the same thing if you think about it

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


do you not understand what AMA means?

ban landlords

Dakimakura posted...

Woman lives in New York

Good luck with that 23 dollars an hour

23 dollars per hour per table seems like it wouldn't be too bad

https://mydonergrill.com/2021/12/06/shawarma-vs-doner-whats-the-difference/

here ya go

i love them a lot

CyricZ posted...

A veto would have been a clear message to the voters that you are against it.

If he is not vetoing it, he's not against it, no matter what he says in a letter.

These "performative actions" fucking matter when you're a politician elected by the people.

The reason he chose no action is as someone already pointed out, plausible deniability come the next election: centrism bullshit.

he understands that it matters, and made the best decision for himself. he wants to keep being elected

remandramdoll posted...

All of these bans should be considered unconstitutional. However, the entire purpose at this juncture is to get as many of these bills passed and slip in stuff to open the doors for anti gay laws as well and once those get appealed to the SCOTUS it will enshrine bigotry and discrimination as the law. And keep in mind that much like anti abortion laws, there are many, many anti gay laws on the books still that will go into effect the moment the SCOTUS rules that those sorts of laws aren't discrimination or at least that the constitution never intended it to protect those groups.

Basically, Trans people are fucked and LGB people and the rest of minorities are next.

As much as I hate what's going on, this is probably true. Modern day Republicans still hate most of the stuff the founding fathers hated hundreds of years ago.

i'm pretty sure leaders being held accountable for their crimes is the opposite of what happens in an authoritarian state