Peat
@planetjackanapes.bsky.social
It matters because you made a comment about the jacket, which by your own standards means you must have "researched" it.
My point is that you have double-standards. Research for me, but not for thee.
My point is that you have double-standards. Research for me, but not for thee.
December 7, 2025 at 6:58 AM
It matters because you made a comment about the jacket, which by your own standards means you must have "researched" it.
My point is that you have double-standards. Research for me, but not for thee.
My point is that you have double-standards. Research for me, but not for thee.
I said frivolous.
But if you "dragging something out" to cost someone money or delay a claim, for example, then yes, you are a douchebag. Some people don't mind getting paid for that.
But if you "dragging something out" to cost someone money or delay a claim, for example, then yes, you are a douchebag. Some people don't mind getting paid for that.
December 7, 2025 at 6:53 AM
I said frivolous.
But if you "dragging something out" to cost someone money or delay a claim, for example, then yes, you are a douchebag. Some people don't mind getting paid for that.
But if you "dragging something out" to cost someone money or delay a claim, for example, then yes, you are a douchebag. Some people don't mind getting paid for that.
Again, a court clerk is likely just a cog in the machine, so no I wouldn't blame the clerk for anything.
The accusation was that he helped an oil company skirt its responsibilities towards indigenous groups.
If your lawsuit is obviously frivolous then yes, your lawyer is a dirtbag.
The accusation was that he helped an oil company skirt its responsibilities towards indigenous groups.
If your lawsuit is obviously frivolous then yes, your lawyer is a dirtbag.
December 7, 2025 at 5:23 AM
Again, a court clerk is likely just a cog in the machine, so no I wouldn't blame the clerk for anything.
The accusation was that he helped an oil company skirt its responsibilities towards indigenous groups.
If your lawsuit is obviously frivolous then yes, your lawyer is a dirtbag.
The accusation was that he helped an oil company skirt its responsibilities towards indigenous groups.
If your lawsuit is obviously frivolous then yes, your lawyer is a dirtbag.
Glad we agree on something.
December 7, 2025 at 5:17 AM
Glad we agree on something.
Of course "unless she does something" you twit.
I'm not pulling opinions out of thin air.
Does you learning about the jacket count as research?
I'm not pulling opinions out of thin air.
Does you learning about the jacket count as research?
December 7, 2025 at 2:34 AM
Of course "unless she does something" you twit.
I'm not pulling opinions out of thin air.
Does you learning about the jacket count as research?
I'm not pulling opinions out of thin air.
Does you learning about the jacket count as research?
You quoted someone accusing Emhoff of working on the Valdez case. I don't know if that's true, but neither do you.
But I'm not the one calling them a liar based on nothing.
No, they accused them of working against victims of the spill. It's pretty clear that is wrong.
But I'm not the one calling them a liar based on nothing.
No, they accused them of working against victims of the spill. It's pretty clear that is wrong.
December 7, 2025 at 2:30 AM
You quoted someone accusing Emhoff of working on the Valdez case. I don't know if that's true, but neither do you.
But I'm not the one calling them a liar based on nothing.
No, they accused them of working against victims of the spill. It's pretty clear that is wrong.
But I'm not the one calling them a liar based on nothing.
No, they accused them of working against victims of the spill. It's pretty clear that is wrong.
I observed that your example was a person with little to no actual power., instead of starting with middle to upper management.
December 7, 2025 at 2:26 AM
I observed that your example was a person with little to no actual power., instead of starting with middle to upper management.
If you can't show they are lying, you can't show they are "misrepresenting the truth".
Also, I fail to see the difference there.
"I wasn't lying your honor, I was misrepresenting the truth.
Case dismissed!"
Also, I fail to see the difference there.
"I wasn't lying your honor, I was misrepresenting the truth.
Case dismissed!"
December 7, 2025 at 2:23 AM
If you can't show they are lying, you can't show they are "misrepresenting the truth".
Also, I fail to see the difference there.
"I wasn't lying your honor, I was misrepresenting the truth.
Case dismissed!"
Also, I fail to see the difference there.
"I wasn't lying your honor, I was misrepresenting the truth.
Case dismissed!"
So yours is an uninformed opinion?
December 7, 2025 at 2:20 AM
So yours is an uninformed opinion?
And I responded to that.
December 7, 2025 at 2:19 AM
And I responded to that.
I'm talking more about the Presidency being "supportive" of the spouses business or political interests.
December 6, 2025 at 10:15 PM
I'm talking more about the Presidency being "supportive" of the spouses business or political interests.
I'm not going to blame a low wage worker who needs to feed themselves or their family, no. Funny you jump straight to people with no power.
December 6, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Ya, I already said that.
December 6, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Ya, I already said that.
I saw it and then you proceeded to claim they were lying. No?
December 6, 2025 at 10:03 PM
I saw it and then you proceeded to claim they were lying. No?
I made no claims about Melania other than that she is a terrible person.
I will ask again, what "research" did YOU do to arrive at YOUR opinion about her?
I will ask again, what "research" did YOU do to arrive at YOUR opinion about her?
December 6, 2025 at 10:02 PM
I made no claims about Melania other than that she is a terrible person.
I will ask again, what "research" did YOU do to arrive at YOUR opinion about her?
I will ask again, what "research" did YOU do to arrive at YOUR opinion about her?
"If that's how you took it".
You're such a weasel. If you meant it another way then explain. I took it that way because that is what you said.
You're such a weasel. If you meant it another way then explain. I took it that way because that is what you said.
December 6, 2025 at 10:00 PM
"If that's how you took it".
You're such a weasel. If you meant it another way then explain. I took it that way because that is what you said.
You're such a weasel. If you meant it another way then explain. I took it that way because that is what you said.
I'm not going to blame a low wage worker who needs to feed themselves or their family, no. Funny you jump straight to people with no power.
December 6, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I'm not going to blame a low wage worker who needs to feed themselves or their family, no. Funny you jump straight to people with no power.
You don't think spouses own stocks? Or have their own political interests?
December 6, 2025 at 9:55 PM
You don't think spouses own stocks? Or have their own political interests?
Am I responsible for the actions of who I work for?
In many cases, yes.
"I know this company pollutes like crazy, but I only work in accounting. Absolved!"
You don't think Trump's cronies are responsible in part for Trump's actions?
In many cases, yes.
"I know this company pollutes like crazy, but I only work in accounting. Absolved!"
You don't think Trump's cronies are responsible in part for Trump's actions?
December 6, 2025 at 9:54 PM
Am I responsible for the actions of who I work for?
In many cases, yes.
"I know this company pollutes like crazy, but I only work in accounting. Absolved!"
You don't think Trump's cronies are responsible in part for Trump's actions?
In many cases, yes.
"I know this company pollutes like crazy, but I only work in accounting. Absolved!"
You don't think Trump's cronies are responsible in part for Trump's actions?
Is is important because you presented that fact as a lie. Was it?
December 6, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Is is important because you presented that fact as a lie. Was it?
I asked what research you did to get that opinion of Melania. Lemme know.
Emhoff quitting before inauguration day is fine, but if you think he sits around all day doing nothing, then lolz. I'm not accusing him of wrongdoing, but for sure he was influence peddling.
Emhoff quitting before inauguration day is fine, but if you think he sits around all day doing nothing, then lolz. I'm not accusing him of wrongdoing, but for sure he was influence peddling.
December 6, 2025 at 9:49 PM
I asked what research you did to get that opinion of Melania. Lemme know.
Emhoff quitting before inauguration day is fine, but if you think he sits around all day doing nothing, then lolz. I'm not accusing him of wrongdoing, but for sure he was influence peddling.
Emhoff quitting before inauguration day is fine, but if you think he sits around all day doing nothing, then lolz. I'm not accusing him of wrongdoing, but for sure he was influence peddling.
You specifically said no one can have an informed opinion about a candidate's spouse. Are you backing off that assertion?
December 6, 2025 at 9:46 PM
You specifically said no one can have an informed opinion about a candidate's spouse. Are you backing off that assertion?
If the spouse owns a large take in an oil company, or mining interests, or works as an lobbyist, or is a member of the NRA, or is a religious nut, is that not important to know?
I know you like to trust your (Democrat) president, but holy shit man.
I know you like to trust your (Democrat) president, but holy shit man.
December 6, 2025 at 9:44 PM
If the spouse owns a large take in an oil company, or mining interests, or works as an lobbyist, or is a member of the NRA, or is a religious nut, is that not important to know?
I know you like to trust your (Democrat) president, but holy shit man.
I know you like to trust your (Democrat) president, but holy shit man.