Jump to content
Burnt Ends Dinner with Gunnar Helm March 28th ×

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Vindictive

 

image.thumb.png.8f7e70782ff242a7b885c3523678463a.png

It's vindictive that he tweeted about it and made it a political show of it, but by law, adult children of ex-presidents don't received Secret Service Protection.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

That’s correct. Also, as a matter of “decency”, the past 5 or so transitions of the office have included the incoming POTUS extending that protection for adult children for 6 months, which is allowed. Trump, because he is Trump just couldn’t do that. It’s about 2 months early and the only reason to pull the details is to give his base new stuff for their spank banks.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

It's vindictive that he tweeted about it and made it a political show of it, but by law, adult children of ex-presidents don't received Secret Service Protection.

Yeah this is actually a nothingburger IMO - the trump children lost their SS in 2022 or so. So yeah, maybe a little early for Hunter but it seems like "adult" children usually don't get protection 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Bojack said:

My handy guide to right wing humor reminds me that there's no point looking for meaning in the joke beyond it's something sexist, racist, or otherwise deliberately  distasteful. I think that's supposed to be Rosie O'Donnell. The joke is he's suggesting Rosie is overweight and unattractive and he thinks the left is triggered by this because he's a moron who thinks (because dumb shit like this is constantly suggested to him) that for us the sun rises and sets out of Rosie's ass every day. Like we're ever mindful of Rosie O'Donnell, but of course most of us aren't even entirely sure who that it. Also, Rosie has nothing to do with St Patrick's Day so don't go searching for a connection there. Inside this dimwit's head: "durr durr Rosie's fat and not hot durr durr they'll be so offended durr durr woke! durr durr gubmint durr durr." 

thats-the-joke-ranier-wolfcastle.gif

And, last time I checked, Barr was a complete Magat.

Posted
3 minutes ago, scottsins said:

That’s correct. Also, as a matter of “decency”, the past 5 or so transitions of the office have included the incoming POTUS extending that protection for adult children for 6 months, which is allowed. Trump, because he is Trump just couldn’t do that. It’s about 2 months early and the only reason to pull the details is to give his base new stuff for their spank banks.

Exactly. Trump gave his four adult kids 6 months protection after he was voted out after his first term. Despite all his bullshit trying to overthrow the free and fair election, shit on the Constitution and America, Biden didn't pull any protection. Trump is just the worst person. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Exactly. Trump gave his four adult kids 6 months protection after he was voted out after his first term. Despite all his bullshit trying to overthrow the free and fair election, shit on the Constitution and America, Biden didn't pull any protection. Trump is just the worst person. 

 

didn't he give his kids a full year of protection after he left office ?

Posted
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

didn't he give his kids a full year of protection after he left office ?

"Former presidents and their spouses receive life-long Secret Service protection under federal law, but the protection afforded to their immediate families over the age of 16 ends when they leave office. But outgoing presidents can extend protection for those who might otherwise not be eligible for up to six months after they leave office, something Biden did for his children and Trump did for his family after leaving office in 2021. Former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also extended protection for their families for a period."

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/18/g-s1-54407/trump-secret-service-protection-biden-adult-children

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

Someone needs to tell dropkick Murphy that republicans like music too:

 

Lead singer tells magazine douche to stfu

 

 

The Dropkick Murphys spent the weekend leading into St. Patrick’s Day hosting three consecutive shows at MGM Music Hall at Fenway Park in Boston. And in true Irish fashion, the weekend concluded with frontman Ken Casey slamming an attendee who spent the duration of Sunday’s concert holding up the all-black MAGA hat popularized by Elon Musk, which Casey called the “true Nazi edition.”

“If you’re in a room full of people and you want to know who’s in a cult, how do you know who’s in a cult?” Casey asked. “They’ve been holding up a fucking hat the whole night to represent a president.” His Celtic smack cam was only just getting started. “This is America, there’s no kings here,” he told the man. “Anyway, if you mind, sir, we’re gonna play a song about our grandparents and people who fought Nazis in the war and shit. So if you could just shut the fuck up for five minutes.”

Edited by Im_smarter_then_you
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

So on Monday it was non-stop "these were violent criminals" on Fox News, and now it's coming out that many of them weren't criminals at all. Could they file a Dominion-stye defamation lawsuit?

Posted
24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

So on Monday it was non-stop "these were violent criminals" on Fox News, and now it's coming out that many of them weren't criminals at all. Could they file a Dominion-stye defamation lawsuit?

Who's "they" in this sentence?

Posted

Chief Justice Roberts pushes back on Trump rhetoric against federal judiciary in rare statement

Quote

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric against the federal judiciary on Tuesday in an unusual and brief statement.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Roberts’ statement did not mention Trump by name, but it came hours after the president stepped up his attacks on federal judges by specifically calling on the judge who temporarily blocked the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to be impeached.

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

More context: The chief justice and the other members of the Supreme Court have largely held their tongue as Trump and his allies have ramped up their attacks on the judiciary.

The statement Tuesday was similar to a rebuke the chief justice issued in 2018, when he responded to Trump’s criticism by saying that, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-administration-presidency-03-18-2025#cm8enypwc000s3b6n40y0lsbv

Posted

Yea, it's too late now you shitheel. 

I wonder if Roberts has started working on his strongly worded letter for when Trump tells the Supreme Court to go fuck themselves?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

So on Monday it was non-stop "these were violent criminals" on Fox News, and now it's coming out that many of them weren't criminals at all. Could they file a Dominion-stye defamation lawsuit?

 

29 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

the deportees

They're gonna be shit outta luck, already out of the country and the door is barred for anyone who disrespects Dear Leader

Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

They're gonna be shit outta luck, already out of the country and the door is barred for anyone who disrespects Dear Leader

People get sued in the UK all the time for defamation, including Johnny Depp

Posted
18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

They're gonna be shit outta luck, already out of the country and the door is barred for anyone who disrespects Dear Leader

Not just out of the country but the US is apparently using our tax dollars to pay to hold them in a slave labor prison indefinitely 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted

'Segregated facilities' are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts

image.thumb.png.f0ebc7e9ba507b580b0f2ed9998430e7.png

Quote

After a recent change by the Trump administration, the federal government no longer explicitly prohibits contractors from having segregated restaurants, waiting rooms and drinking fountains.

The segregation clause is one of several identified in a public memo issued by the General Services Administration last month, affecting all civil federal agencies. The memo explains that it is making changes prompted by President Trump's executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion, which repealed an executive order signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 regarding federal contractors and nondiscrimination. The memo also addresses Trump's executive order on gender identity.

While there are still state and federal laws that outlaw segregation and discrimination that companies need to comply with, legal experts say this change to contracts across the federal government is significant.

"It's symbolic, but it's incredibly meaningful in its symbolism," says Melissa Murray, a constitutional law professor at New York University. "These provisions that required federal contractors to adhere to and comply with federal civil rights laws and to maintain integrated rather than segregated workplaces were all part of the federal government's efforts to facilitate the settlement that led to integration in the 1950s and 1960s.

"The fact that they are now excluding those provisions from the requirements for federal contractors, I think, speaks volumes," Murray says.

Deleted mentions of drinking fountains, transportation, housing

The clause in question is in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, known as the FAR — a huge document used by agencies to write contracts for anyone providing goods or services to the federal government.

Clause 52.222-21 of the FAR is titled "Prohibition of Segregated Facilities" and reads: "The Contractor agrees that it does not and will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not and will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location under its control where segregated facilities are maintained."

It defines segregated facilities as work areas, restaurants, drinking fountains, transportation, housing and more — and it says you can't segregate based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin."

Several federal agencies, including the departments of Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, have notified staff who oversee federal contracts that they should start instituting these changes.

A recent notice from the National Institutes of Health shows that the change is already in effect. The notice, regarding a maintenance agreement for scientific freeze dryers, cites the GSA memo and reads, "FAR 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities and FAR 52.222-26 — Equal Opportunity will not be considered when making award decisions or enforce requirements."

To be clear, all businesses — those that have government contracts and those that do not — still need to follow federal and state laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes segregated facilities illegal.

In effect immediately 

One federal worker who works on contracts says they were "shocked" when they received notice about the FAR changes from their agency. NPR has agreed not to identify the worker because they fear being fired for speaking to the media without authorization.

They said that the process used to institute these changes, without a typical public notice or comment period of 45 to 90 days, is usually reserved for national emergencies.

"The way that they're implementing this in the contracting field is essentially subverting democracy — you're supposed to allow agencies to comment on this, contracting officers to comment on it, and think through the implications carefully," the worker said. "By doing this, they're essentially ramming things through hoping no one's going to notice."

The General Services Administration did not answer NPR's question about why the agency did not follow the usual public notice and comment procedure, or a question about why the "segregated facilities" clause was removed.

In a statement, GSA spokesperson Will Powell wrote: "GSA has taken immediate action to fully implement all current executive orders and is committed to taking action to implement any new executive orders."

Recent history

Kara Sacilotto, an attorney at the Wiley law firm in Washington, D.C., which specializes in federal contracts, speculates that the provision was flagged because it was revised under the Obama administration to include "gender identity." That change was made, she says, "to implement an Obama era Executive Order 13672, and that executive order from the Obama administration is one of the ones that President Trump, in his second term, rescinded," she explains. "And so, along with [Trump's] other executive orders about gender identification, I would suspect that is the reason why this one got identified on the list."

The memo does not say to exclude just the "gender identity" part of the clause, however. It says to exclude the whole thing.

The Civil Rights Generation

Everyday people were civil rights heroes, too. This is the story of one town's fight

Murray, the law professor, says racial segregation is not as far away in history as it may seem. She remembers a trip to Washington, D.C., in 1985, when her father, a Jamaican immigrant, took her to Woodward & Lothrop, a department store where he had worked when he'd been a student at Howard University.

She'd thought he had been a salesman at the store, which closed in 1995. "He's like, 'No, no, no, I only worked in the back because Black people weren't allowed to be on the sales floor,'" she recalls. When it comes to segregation in America, she says, "it's not far removed at all."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5326118/segregation-federal-contracts-far-regulation-trump

Posted
15 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They are likely poor and brown, so no they cannot file defamation suits.

there's no shortage of lawyers willing to do it on contingency

Posted
7 hours ago, Bojack said:

My handy guide to right wing humor reminds me that there's no point looking for meaning in the joke beyond it's something sexist, racist, or otherwise deliberately  distasteful. I think that's supposed to be Rosie O'Donnell. The joke is he's suggesting Rosie is overweight and unattractive and he thinks the left is triggered by this because he's a moron who thinks (because dumb shit like this is constantly suggested to him) that for us the sun rises and sets out of Rosie's ass every day. Like we're ever mindful of Rosie O'Donnell, but of course most of us aren't even entirely sure who that it. Also, Rosie has nothing to do with St Patrick's Day so don't go searching for a connection there. Inside this dimwit's head: "durr durr Rosie's fat and not hot durr durr they'll be so offended durr durr woke! durr durr gubmint durr durr." 

thats-the-joke-ranier-wolfcastle.gif

 



×
×
  • Create New...