You call them "toast tongs" but I swear they're really meant for quackers.
I don’t think I’ve ever shown you lot my toast tongs.
Behold:
Behold:
August 18, 2025 at 7:54 PM
You call them "toast tongs" but I swear they're really meant for quackers.
I knew many Republicans were doing it for the fringe benefits, not actually believing what they say. But it's still shocking to see so many line up with the idea that a government law enforcement group can just round people up without reasonable suspicion.
July 12, 2025 at 7:51 PM
I knew many Republicans were doing it for the fringe benefits, not actually believing what they say. But it's still shocking to see so many line up with the idea that a government law enforcement group can just round people up without reasonable suspicion.
I'm sorry, I got riled up like on Twitter.
I can believe you meant that and I joined after it had escalated. Please understand that many of those who thought you meant Democrats did so in good faith. Further litigation of that isn't worthy of either of our time.
Have a lovely evening!
I can believe you meant that and I joined after it had escalated. Please understand that many of those who thought you meant Democrats did so in good faith. Further litigation of that isn't worthy of either of our time.
Have a lovely evening!
What IF, crazy as it sounds, the democrats weren’t being attacked? What if I truly meant liberals and you were safe from harm? There was no invisible ink, no catch — just a comment on liberalism.
What if that were the case? And you could make it possible by simple believing it?
What if that were the case? And you could make it possible by simple believing it?
No, this is the only account I have here.
It's absurdities like these that led me to comment. There's no sign to me of fear to say "Democrats." That's a misrepresentation of the criticism.
bsky.app/profile/tres...
It's absurdities like these that led me to comment. There's no sign to me of fear to say "Democrats." That's a misrepresentation of the criticism.
bsky.app/profile/tres...
July 11, 2025 at 1:33 AM
I'm sorry, I got riled up like on Twitter.
I can believe you meant that and I joined after it had escalated. Please understand that many of those who thought you meant Democrats did so in good faith. Further litigation of that isn't worthy of either of our time.
Have a lovely evening!
I can believe you meant that and I joined after it had escalated. Please understand that many of those who thought you meant Democrats did so in good faith. Further litigation of that isn't worthy of either of our time.
Have a lovely evening!
Fair criticism of my language choice. I should have said is it didn't come with blatant misrepresentations of the criticism. Thank you for the opportunity to correct my improper implications.
There's no sign or claim you feared to say "Democrats." That leads me to doubt your earnestness elsewhere.
There's no sign or claim you feared to say "Democrats." That leads me to doubt your earnestness elsewhere.
Yes, yes, if only I would adequately refute your assumptions to your satisfaction in a tone of which you approve. This had not occurred to me! Now that it has…no.
Yes.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
July 11, 2025 at 1:29 AM
Fair criticism of my language choice. I should have said is it didn't come with blatant misrepresentations of the criticism. Thank you for the opportunity to correct my improper implications.
There's no sign or claim you feared to say "Democrats." That leads me to doubt your earnestness elsewhere.
There's no sign or claim you feared to say "Democrats." That leads me to doubt your earnestness elsewhere.
Yes.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
LOL heavily implies.
Not in colloquial American language, which is what I'm assuming you're using on this platform.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
July 11, 2025 at 1:17 AM
Yes.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
You have since said that's not what you meant. Which, if you did it without all the vitriol, would be great and make sense. But here it seems like backpeddling.
Not in colloquial American language, which is what I'm assuming you're using on this platform.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
You will notice that none of these sock puppets take issue with me using interdisciplinary, a word that without context specifically means formal schools of knowledge production. They just all chose bipartisan to be democrat avengers. WHO WILL STAND FOR THE DISCIPLINES?!
July 11, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Not in colloquial American language, which is what I'm assuming you're using on this platform.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
Put a different way, you ask why you'd go to such lengths to obscure mentions of Democrats. You didn't. It may have been unintentional, but you used language that heavily implies them. Then gaslit us.
You call it bipartisan. In this country, when we're talking about policy, that is equivalent to "Republicans and Democrats" unless there are other parties mentioned.
By "bipartisan" did you mean Republicans and Libertarians? Which "liberals" did you mean in your other post?
That's not weird.
By "bipartisan" did you mean Republicans and Libertarians? Which "liberals" did you mean in your other post?
That's not weird.
Can anyone explain to me why I would go through so much trouble to obscure a critique of Democrats? How is that easier to argue than it is to believe I meant what I said? That seems hella weird.
It's not an astroturf campaign. People are reading what you wrote and are annoyed at your word games.
If something is bipartisan, the assumption is that Democrats and Republicans agree significantly. You haven't clarified, but instead insist that the only thing that matters is saying Democrat.
If something is bipartisan, the assumption is that Democrats and Republicans agree significantly. You haven't clarified, but instead insist that the only thing that matters is saying Democrat.
July 11, 2025 at 1:00 AM
You call it bipartisan. In this country, when we're talking about policy, that is equivalent to "Republicans and Democrats" unless there are other parties mentioned.
By "bipartisan" did you mean Republicans and Libertarians? Which "liberals" did you mean in your other post?
That's not weird.
By "bipartisan" did you mean Republicans and Libertarians? Which "liberals" did you mean in your other post?
That's not weird.
Now that our Supreme Court has declined to block Musk's self-descrobed violation of state vote buying laws, I hope @joshkaulwi.bsky.social is moving forward with felony charges, whatever the outcome of tomorrow's election may be.
March 31, 2025 at 12:04 PM
Now that our Supreme Court has declined to block Musk's self-descrobed violation of state vote buying laws, I hope @joshkaulwi.bsky.social is moving forward with felony charges, whatever the outcome of tomorrow's election may be.
I didn't rewatch or anything, but how did he know both sides of the switch were kind of the same color?
That said, I thought the bank robbery was a lot of fun. I'm seeing it as a bonus episode on top of an eight episode season.
#Daredevil
That said, I thought the bank robbery was a lot of fun. I'm seeing it as a bonus episode on top of an eight episode season.
#Daredevil
March 26, 2025 at 12:43 PM
I didn't rewatch or anything, but how did he know both sides of the switch were kind of the same color?
That said, I thought the bank robbery was a lot of fun. I'm seeing it as a bonus episode on top of an eight episode season.
#Daredevil
That said, I thought the bank robbery was a lot of fun. I'm seeing it as a bonus episode on top of an eight episode season.
#Daredevil