Jump to content

What Made You Laugh Today?


GeddysMullet
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, BastillePark said:

Probably a doctored picture but it fits. :laugh:

 

eGnDCMKl.jpg

 

 

:unsure::sad:  My eyes!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Elon Musk implode over Threads getting 70 million users as of today.  :biggrin:  Couldn't happen to a creepier guy.  Not that happy that Zuck is getting the traffic but anything that messes with Musk is fine by me. :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/05/white-house-cocaine-culprit-unlikely-to-be-found-law-enforcement-official-00104742

 

"Law enforcement officials confirmed on Wednesday that cocaine was found at the White House over the weekend.

 

But one official familiar with the investigation cautioned that the source of the drug was unlikely to be determined given that it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing."

 

We'll never know...

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rick N. Backer said:

:laugh:

 

In related news, saying less with more:

 

The new hot bench: With Jackson leading the way, the justices are speaking  more during oral arguments - SCOTUSblog

Brevity is the soul of jurisprudence.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nova Carmina said:

 

brevity is the soul of wit : r/AdviceAnimals

I don't think it really is a meme, per se.  It's more like something you'd find in one of those inspirational poster stores that were popular in the 90s but have succumbed to online options, except one that appeals to heavy users of hallucinogens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

:laugh:

 

In related news, saying less with more:

 

The new hot bench: With Jackson leading the way, the justices are speaking  more during oral arguments - SCOTUSblog

Thomas doesn't talk much because he's an insecure t**t who's afraid people will make fun of his Gullah accent but his actions (voting) speak infinitely louder than his words anyway and not in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BastillePark said:

Thomas doesn't talk much because he's an insecure t**t who's afraid people will make fun of his Gullah accent but his actions (voting) speak infinitely louder than his words anyway and not in a good way.

Actually, he speaks first because he's the most senior justice.  He usually just asks counsel questions about the contours of the law, which is (in my experience) what a judge usually does.  You may not agree with his theory of jurisprudence, but a judge who talks more than the attorneys whose arguments he or she is probing isn't doing the job of "judging."  The purpose of oral argument isn't for the judge to tell you what he or she thinks.  It's for the judge to find out which attorneys' argument should carry the day.

Edited by Rick N. Backer
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rick N. Backer said:

Actually, he speaks first because he's the most senior justice.  He usually just asks counsel questions about the contours of the law, which is (in my experience) what a judge usually does.  You may not agree with his theory of jurisprudence, but a judge who talks more than the attorneys whose arguments he or she is probing isn't doing the job of "judging."  The purpose of oral argument isn't for the judge to tell you what he or she thinks.  It's for the judge to find out which attorneys' argument should carry the day.

I guess the other judges didn't get that memo. Something interesting about that graph is it labels them Conservative and Liberal but I thought judges especially on the supreme Court were supposedly only to rule on the Constitutionality of a case? I guess "legislation from the Bench" really is a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BastillePark said:

I guess the other judges didn't get that memo. Something interesting about that graph is it labels them Conservative and Liberal but I thought judges especially on the supreme Court were supposedly only to rule on the Constitutionality of a case? I guess "legislation from the Bench" really is a thing.

Sometimes it is ("emanations and penumbras, anyone?), but fortunately, there's currently (usually, if Roberts puts his judge's robe on instead of fretting about the perception of the legitimacy of the Court by people who fundamentally misunderstand what it's supposed to do) a 6-3 advantage of judges over wannabe legislators.

Edited by laughedatbytime
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BastillePark said:

Thomas doesn't talk much because he's an insecure t**t who's afraid people will make fun of his Gullah accent but his actions (voting) speak infinitely louder than his words anyway and not in a good way.

Wow.   Just wow.

 

And not in a good way.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BastillePark said:

I guess the other judges didn't get that memo. Something interesting about that graph is it labels them Conservative and Liberal but I thought judges especially on the supreme Court were supposedly only to rule on the Constitutionality of a case? I guess "legislation from the Bench" really is a thing.

Some of them are definitely more aggressive with counsel than others.  Alito and Gorsuch often get into it with counsel.  Thomas never does.

 

The graph wasn't prepared by the justices as far as I know.  It refers to the justice by their commonly understood ideology.  Be honest.  It comports with how you see them, right?  If you want to see the difference between a conservative ideology and a liberal one, I recommend you read Thomas' and Jackson's opinions in the SFFA cases.  Here's the joint opinion:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf

 

Thomas' begins on page 49.  Jackson's begins on 209.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rick N. Backer said:

Some of them are definitely more aggressive with counsel than others.  Alito and Gorsuch often get into it with counsel.  Thomas never does.

 

The graph wasn't prepared by the justices as far as I know.  It refers to the justice by their commonly understood ideology.  Be honest.  It comports with how you see them, right?  If you want to see the difference between a conservative ideology and a liberal one, I recommend you read Thomas' and Jackson's opinions in the SFFA cases.  Here's the joint opinion:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf

 

Thomas' begins on page 49.  Jackson's begins on 209.

I'll read those at some point but I don't automatically dislike decisions based solely on the way he votes. In fact I've been rather surprised with some of the recent decisions. Some of them like the Affirmative Action and voting thing in Alabama and not allowing states to set rules in federal elections I agreed with and some of them like the Native American child one I don't agree with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, laughedatbytime said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/05/white-house-cocaine-culprit-unlikely-to-be-found-law-enforcement-official-00104742

 

"Law enforcement officials confirmed on Wednesday that cocaine was found at the White House over the weekend.

 

But one official familiar with the investigation cautioned that the source of the drug was unlikely to be determined given that it was discovered in a highly trafficked area of the West Wing."

 

We'll never know...

 

 

 

I'm glad you posted this b/c I have something relevant to share. Years ago (before drug testing was a thing) my neighbor's co-workers spiked her coffee with meth as a joke. I was appalled because people with cardiac issues like heart murmurs can suffer tremendously from something like that. (I avoided coke/powder drugs in my party years as I was terrified of an OD.) 

 

The coke might have been planted, or yeah, someone got sloppy and made a mess. We'll obviously never know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BigMontanaSKY said:

I'm glad you posted this b/c I have something relevant to share. Years ago (before drug testing was a thing) my neighbor's co-workers spiked her coffee with meth as a joke. I was appalled because people with cardiac issues like heart murmurs can suffer tremendously from something like that. (I avoided coke/powder drugs in my party years as I was terrified of an OD.) 

 

The coke might have been planted, or yeah, someone got sloppy and made a mess. We'll obviously never know.

 

 

We'll never know with (virtual) 100% certainty because there's no intention of an honest investigation by those charged with doing the investigation.   There's a very clear favorite in who would be found to be responsible for it if there was an honest investigation, which is why there will be no honest, thorough investigation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BigMontanaSKY said:

I'm glad you posted this b/c I have something relevant to share. Years ago (before drug testing was a thing) my neighbor's co-workers spiked her coffee with meth as a joke. I was appalled because people with cardiac issues like heart murmurs can suffer tremendously from something like that. (I avoided coke/powder drugs in my party years as I was terrified of an OD.) 

 

The coke might have been planted, or yeah, someone got sloppy and made a mess. We'll obviously never know.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, laughedatbytime said:

We'll never know with (virtual) 100% certainty because there's no intention of an honest investigation by those charged with doing the investigation.   There's a very clear favorite in who would be found to be responsible for it if there was an honest investigation, which is why there will be no honest, thorough investigation.

 

 

We'd know for sure if white supremacists planted a baggy of anthrax.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reading the paper yesterday when the telephone rings. I don't recognize the number, so I turn on the screening function and let the machine answer. A stilted, computerized  voice says my full name (but mispronounces the last name), says it's "attorney David Marshall with Publishers Clearing House" advising I've won a cash prize, and I should call "at my earliest convenience" so my prize can be delivered to (states my home address").  Yeah, right scamster.  I get on PCH's website and filled out their "scam report" form.  I haven't erased the recorded message of this shyster, think I'll retain it just for shits and giggles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...