Mitch McConnell's Stolen Supreme Court Seat Is Already Fucking Up America

Even assuming your definition is correct, can the term be used for illegal immigrants from, say, Canada? China? Albania? France?

Or is the term only targeted at illegal immigrants from a particular race, ethnicity, or nationality?

Someone should probably warn your employer that you're drunk at work...

Wow, he's still going, huh?

Worse, he’s utterly convinced he got one over on us.

Tijuana river. Trust me though that you do not want to get near that disgusting water. The city of Tijuana has over 1 million people and they dump raw sewage directly into it from all 1 million. The US government paid for a brand new state of the art sewage treatment plant and Mexico agreed to pay to operate it but, naturally, it has never entered service because Mexico never upheld its side of the bargain. The river is also heavily polluted by Asian electronics makers who have set up factories there and dump waste directly into it.

But that is Mexico.

Facts and reality say your original claim was proven wrong. Thus why you keep trying to move the goal posts. The original claim we were discussing was does the term wetbacks refer to all Mexicans or just specifically illegal aliens in the US.

You were wrong, you know you were wrong, but your lack of character and your dishonesty won't let you admit the obvious. That is just pathetic and reflects poorly upon you.

I was unaware he'd used the N Word as well.

But he's not a racist, it's all a nasty lie dontchaknow!

That's not so much a body of water as it is patches of water in a dried up riverbed, or a faint trickle in an artificial concrete riverbed.

Yep, and Ramen was banned not because he showed a black person being lynched, and implied he wanted it to happen to Anna, but because the mods hate rope.
When he comes back, we can argue about rope for 25 pages.
It'll be a blast.

It's foreign, a bit dirty and has brown people nearby. That's all he needs to know.

I'd remind you that you didn't know the people you'd bought the "sopes" from were illegal aliens. So even if you didn't intend to use it as a slur (which, let's face it, nobody believes given you other bigotry) what you did is nonetheless create a stereotype of all Mexican restaurant workers as disreputables by assuming they are all illegal immigrants. So still bigoted.

*waits for dumb rep and cwies of "Chup you such a wikkle wiar!!"*

And about that "stolen" seat...

...it's not theft when the government does it.

Gorsuch was just the cost of doing business, specifically picked to be a Scalia clone (with a duller mind but still) - if Garland had been seated Gorsuch would be up now and a mostly uncontroversial confirmation.

As for Kennedy, thing is that he has always been a very conservative dude on everything but the social equality issues - he was rated a year or two back as the 10th most conservative justice since WW2. It's just that the four to his right are..in the top 10, defaulting him to the "center" seat even though the center is in this case well to the right of actual ideological moderation.

Interesting thing about his deliberately giving Trump an effective blank check instead of waiting six months...can't prove it's connected but it's amazing how the tendrils of Trump's unethical shit seem to touch everything...
Kennedy's son works for Deusche Bank - and was the banker who approved loans that saved Trump's ass when literally no other bank would touch him. He was called "Trump's favorite banker" - yet somehow no one in the media happen to notice and report this until this week.
Bizarre.

honestly it's not the ban, as such, that's bothering me - it's that the right wing of the court SPECIFICALLY said in Masterpiece that previous derogatory comments were valid evidence of religiously motivated bias, and less than a week later specifically said that many many more, much more blunt, much more passionate, derogatory comments could NOT be assumed to have created a religiously motivated bias behind the decision. One or the other, if not both, cannot be anything but nakedly partisan and has the direct and unmistakable effect of saying "White Evangelical religion deserves more constitutional respect than Islam"

Hell, Franklin Graham might as well have written them.

union dues were not at issue here. that which you oppose had already been settled in your favor ages ago, thus "right to work" states.

I posted this on Facebook/Twitter yesterday, seems to fit here:

I used to be conservative, or thought I was, but looking back they hold some really ridiculous positions. I was listening to NPR about the Janus decision and it occurs to me that a large part of conservative economic policy is literally self-attacking for the right wing voter. I understand why leadership & power players support it - they are on the dime of the oligarchs. But they manage to convince average working people that "we want to give maximum liberty to your wealthy employer to further exploit you" is a great idea. Same with environmental stuff.
And a range of other domestic (non-culture war) policies. Right wing voters have been convinced that the best policy is the one that allows the wealthy to further build their fortune without any limits on how much damage they do to the non-wealthy in the process.

do you get paid at the same rate, and have the same benefits, that the union negotiated for it's membership?

so, see above - the non-union employee doesn't get the pay and benefits negotiated by the union?

actually i'm not interested in a knee-jerk leftist anymore than a knee-jerk right winger. Someone who actually gets the law right, whether or not it serves their political views, would be the ideal choice. (as rare as such nominations may be)

in reality, there is no "big deal" - but for Dominionist politicians (like Dan Patrick for example) and political scammers like Tony Perkins and faux "ministers" like Franklin Graham, it's a very powerful tool to manipulate the ignorant with fear and anger. Doesn't have to be rational if it moves the base.

paraphrasing...

"First they came for the people I hate and I was down with that, then they came for the people I didn't care about and it was none of my business, then when they came for me..."

saying "they could lose their lives" is NOT saying "The court will authorize their murders"

And yes, lives are at stake. For example, appeals courts have almost routinely now upheld trans equality at work and school under Title VII and Title IX. I fully expect that the next court, or the one after, will take a case on appeal in this area - kick Title IX protection (and probably Title VII in an employment case concerning trans or gay persons) out from under us and give a blank check for schools (and employers) in red states to treat trans people as second class citizens without legitimate status.

It is absolutely certain, beyond all doubt, that multiple trans young people will take their own lives as a result of this rejection, and multiple trans adults will do so in the face of potential loss of employment and housing rights. You won't hear about it, or care when it happens - but it WILL happen.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
-John Steinbeck.

Fixed that for you. If you have a problem with Elgar, you've only listened to the band version of Pomp and Circumstance no 1; the original orchestral verision's much better, and that says nothing of the Enigma Variations.
That said, time to fire up BWV 548. Nothing like Bach's Prelude and Fugue in E Minor to really fire it up

Oh please. Why would someone commit suicide just because they lose a job? I would've killed myself several times if that was a reason to do so.

That's what a slur is...unless you're talking about printers.

Definition of slur
1a : an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo : aspersion
b : a shaming or degrading effect : stain, stigma
2: a blurred spot in printed matter : smudge

And increase the autism suicide rate? Please don’t!

The false claim was that it was a "racial slur" which four out of five said it meant illegal aliens. My bitch was that a certain admin lied and claimed it meant all Mexicans when 4 out of 5 definitions (and all the professionally written definitions at that) said it was specifically about illegal aliens.

But has that particular admin apologized? Has he admitted he made a hasty error? Has he said he will try to hear both sides before emotionally over reacting like a child in the future? Nope, not so far.

@Malarky