Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Closest I come to making sense of the term, as used, is a biscuit is a “side piece.”

He's used the term "butter(ed) biscuit" in the past to refer to Blacks behaving like Uncle Toms. Past context clues suggest that Stachel himself is African American, so he might be using a term that's unfamiliar in mainstream white culture.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bolverk said:

He's used the term "butter(ed) biscuit" in the past to refer to Blacks behaving like Uncle Toms. Past context clues suggest that Stachel himself is African American, so he might be using a term that's unfamiliar in mainstream white culture.

True and thanks. Sometimes when referring to butter biscuits, we use the abbreviated term with the understanding that the butter part is understood. I’ve known of that biscuit since he tried to hem up a friend of mine in a Project Veritas sting in Dallas several years ago.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Closest I come to making sense of the term, as used, is a biscuit is a “side piece.”

So when Digital Underground says "I'm the one who said just grab 'em in the biscuits" how does this make sense?  Or is this like "you be illing" from RUNDMC and Eazy-E's take "Bored as hell and I wanna get ill."  where the regional context may have lead the slang to be used in two different meanings depending on how it is said, or where it is said.    Clearly, I need David Foster Wallace type essay on this.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/5/2024 at 12:30 PM, Nivek said:

So when Digital Underground says "I'm the one who said just grab 'em in the biscuits" how does this make sense?  Or is this like "you be illing" from RUNDMC and Eazy-E's take "Bored as hell and I wanna get ill."  where the regional context may have lead the slang to be used in two different meanings depending on how it is said, or where it is said.    Clearly, I need David Foster Wallace type essay on this.   

This post reminds me of the time that I, a person originally from Oak Cliff who grew up in a very diverse neighborhood of Dallas and graduated from a majority minority high school got chided when I used commonplace language I grew up with for “appropriating AAVE” by my daughter, a college Sophomore from Central Austin who attends the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This post reminds me of the time that I, a person originally from Oak Cliff who grew up in a very diverse neighborhood of Dallas and graduated from a majority minority high school got chided when I used commonplace language I grew up with for “appropriating AAVE” by my daughter, a college Sophomore from Central Austin who attends the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Haha.   Tell her you don't appreciate her misappropriation of Alanis Morissette. 

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

Kavanaugh at $100.     LOL.    Lets see those credit card payments beer boy.

He already got paid prior to joining the court.

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have to pay taxes on gifts like that ?

Yes.
Chances that he paid said taxes? Below zero.
Chances that the GQP senate will hold him accountable? Even lower.
He’s going to take open bribes, rub our noses in it, and say “what are you gonna do about it, pussies?” He’s a criminal, protected by criminals.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

This GOP led Supreme Court sure is going well. It’s almost like they can’t be trusted with anything.

Shocked Oh No GIF by PG Tips

Can you believe it?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either the House or the DOJ should be investigating to determine if there have been criminal actions potentially leading to impeachment proceedings against Thomas. He will refuse to cooperate but who cares.

im tired of reading how he claims that other judicial officials told him that he didn’t have to report the gifts. What kind of defense is that?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These stories are all clear that in some of the findings are based on what Thomas ultimately disclosed when presented with facts. There is really no reason to believe that he hasn’t taken more gifts up to and including cash or other assets. Or gifts that were provided to his wife or other family members.

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.
Chances that he paid said taxes? Below zero.
Chances that the GQP senate will hold him accountable? Even lower.

I couldn't care less about what the Senate does.  The IRS needs to open an audit and nail his ass.  Hey to Al Capone.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how the highest superior legal minds supposedly are befuddled by forms, disclosure, and ethics.   Even an idiotic non-lawyer would tend to default to disclosure in order to maintain the appearance of integrity. 

These chucklefucks cannot even get their story straight, preside on fraudulent cases, and accept bribes,  because there is no accountability.    If I were POTUS, I would move their offices to some embassy in  a conflict nation.   

   

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Either the House or the DOJ should be investigating to determine if there have been criminal actions potentially leading to impeachment proceedings against Thomas. He will refuse to cooperate but who cares.

im tired of reading how he claims that other judicial officials told him that he didn’t have to report the gifts. What kind of defense is that?

hell, I met with my city council member as a rep of my business and I couldn't even pay his tab. the level of privilege being waved in our faces like big unwanted penises is fucking sickening. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2024 at 2:07 PM, Horn Dog said:

Kavanaugh at $100.     LOL.    Lets see those credit card payments beer boy.

This total is absolutely false. That guy had debt wiped away like it never existed and I am supposed to believe he took only a 100?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

This total is absolutely false. That guy had debt wiped away like it never existed and I am supposed to believe he took only a 100?

These numbers are after appointment to SCOTUS.  Brett's debt was wiped away by Donkey Dong Doug prior to appointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, they cleared all of his debts so that it wouldn't become an issue during his confirmation hearings.  It's still crooked shit.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah, woah, woah…..   are we saying the IRS can’t elect to audit him as a citizen?  There would be just cause at this point.   I presume if he shot someone he is going to jail. He can go to jail for tax evasion too a la Al Capone, too.  Congress may not be able to do shit but I presume the IRS or, presumably, the Virginia state tax authority, could be interested in whether his tax returns note those gifts.  Now, I imagine there is a way to suggest they aren’t taxable or can be diced up in a way to avoid any thresholds that require tax.  
 

This is all wishcasting but I can’t believe Supreme Court justices are immune to prosecution for state or federal crimes, even if it doesn’t lose them their seat without impeachment.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

These numbers are after appointment to SCOTUS.  Brett's debt was wiped away by Donkey Dong Doug prior to appointment.

I want that stuff included. I do realize it was prior to the appointment, but we know why he got it paid. Man have we failed so miserably as a country to be in this position with the highest court in the land. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Woah, woah, woah…..   are we saying the IRS can’t elect to audit him as a citizen?  There would be just cause at this point.   I presume if he shot someone he is going to jail. He can go to jail for tax evasion too a la Al Capone, too.  Congress may not be able to do shit but I presume the IRS or, presumably, the Virginia state tax authority, could be interested in whether his tax returns note those gifts.  Now, I imagine there is a way to suggest they aren’t taxable or can be diced up in a way to avoid any thresholds that require tax.  
 

This is all wishcasting but I can’t believe Supreme Court justices are immune to prosecution for state or federal crimes, even if it doesn’t lose them their seat without impeachment.   

My bad, and I was unclear - SCOTUS justices can be subjected to criminal process, but they can only be removed from office via impeachment.  So, you could have a convicted felon SCOUTS justice, possibly in prison...and he would hold his seat unless he was impeached and convicted by the Senate (which will never, ever happen - for fuck's sake, that party is nominating a convicted felon for POTUS).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

For a guy appoint to be one of the final arbiters of the law, he sure seems to have a tough time comprehending the law.


he also has a hard time reporting everything ….

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kevwun said:

Judge's shouldn't even be able to accept gifts.  It's so ripe for corruption that it's hard to believe it's taken so long for something like this to come to light.

Every year I have to take corporate ethics training and one of the things they always bring up is how we aren’t allowed to accept gifts from clients. Somehow this doesn’t apply to SCOTUS. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My bad, and I was unclear - SCOTUS justices can be subjected to criminal process, but they can only be removed from office via impeachment.  So, you could have a convicted felon SCOUTS justice, possibly in prison...and he would hold his seat unless he was impeached and convicted by the Senate (which will never, ever happen - for fuck's sake, that party is nominating a convicted felon for POTUS).

If Alito and Thomas want to still decide cases from a federal prison I guess I would be ok with that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...