You could like, listen to the song? There is one line where they only do 4 (the very first), but every other one is 5 (in the hook).  0:23 is a prime example.  Fuck you for making me listen to this again. 

I know this comes from Ron Swanson, but it’s a trash take.  All dogs are good. 

My other comment may not be showing up depending on Kinja’s mood. The core of my point is that what can be seen on a given user’s social media page is not entirely their own, since there’s some community elements too. I’ve had to deal with trolls on my page saying offensive (but also verifiable and true) things about…

Man, I sure hope it’s bravado, because the alternative is probably far worse. 

It’s brutal.  A close friend of mine had a man commit suicide by walking into traffic and she hit and killed him.  Beyond the absolute horror of having seen someone die that up close and knowing that you’re “responsible”, she had to prove in court that the man was actually committing suicide so that she wasn’t charge…

I’m in agreement with all of that, and I didn’t mean to mischaracterize what you were saying. I responded to another comment that sheds a bit more light on my stance, but there are some unintended publicly-facing elements of social media that are often no fault of the user, other than simply having a social media…

My bigger concern is not necessarily the content that the applicant puts out, but also the comments and responses from others.

I don’t want to Baha Men Truther right now, but...

Is this due to the nature of her position, or across the board with all social media? I’m hesitant to say that social media is carte blanche grounds for firing, even though this example is a real dumpster fire of a human.

Nah, this is a clear example of it:

I’m sure this answer is going to annoy you, so I’m apologizing in advance: I think it’s a spectrum of Good <-> Bad Sportsmanship.

Excellent, thanks for the info. Last question (please don’t send me an invoice):

I’m not going to defend flat-earthers, if that’s the logical corner you’re trying to back me into. I’m not equating doubting well-established scientific theory with thinking that something is rude. I think we’re on the same page with your first two paragraphs, so I’ve got no qualms there.

It’s a good opener, right? 

Well, one of the two would have certainly been Merrick Garland, so let’s isolate that appointment instead of hypothesizing who else she may have nominated.

I don’t want to isolate one issue too much (as I disagree with you across the board), but I would urge you to look no further than the Supreme Court. There have been two generations-long appointments made in the last two years that simply would not have happened, even if literally every other nightmare of this…

I’m not a lawyer, so I’m likely to get schooled here, but it seems like a settlement in which one party pays the other and receives nothing more than the lawsuit being dropped would not be seen as a win. To be fair, we have no information on the settlement in this case, so it’s possible there were further concessions…

As long as we agree that your statement is either A) wrong in its assumption, or B) conditional so that you can be right with either outcome and therefore not really saying anything at all, sure, we can consider this settled.

Oh, honey. Do you really think that every athlete agrees on any single issue? Some give a shit, some don’t. Caring/not caring about showboating after a game is decided is not a universal truth.

I love the internet comeback of “you probably haven’t played sports!”