downvotes here mean exactly as much as they mean anywhere else
AND FOR THE 9TH TIME, I wouldn't write "86" when I meant "no", but expecting restaurant workers to know restaurant lingo isn't some massive stretch. He's not speaking Latin. the bigger dumbass is 100% the person who actually put 86 cherries into a milkshake.
you're basically using jargon outside of its typical area of use and expecting everyone to know wtf you're talking about
I mean, the guy who used the restaurant term was giving directions directly to a restaurant.
Like I said, I would personally just say "no cherries", but messaging restaurant lingo to a restaurant isn't some crazy reach. Not enough to warrant the original comment that I responded to, basically saying "fuck that guy, eat your fuckin cherries".
Honestly I'd work under the assumption that restaurant employees knew what "86" meant. I'd still prob just write "no cherries" lol but the assumption isn't that crazy. It's common restaurant lingo.
Edit: people that never worked in a restaurant downvoting me "I NEVER HEARD OF NO 86, DOWNVOTED FOR SHARING AN ANECDOTE" lol this site is cancer. There's a reason lemmy will never take off, and it's the user base
Uhhh what? Did you forget what you wrote? Every part of my prior comment is directly referencing a part of yours. Are you having a stroke or something?
I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making. Do you want to point to a dem policy? So I can tell you exactly who profited?
Jk I don't actually care lol. The vitriol I receive from saying "humans aren't black and white, 50% of the country aren't motivated solely by causing suffering" is reward enough.
Well, you picked one and I picked one. You chose the "right to try", ignored all the positives, focused on some possible negative, then implied that every Repub that voted for it did so only in order to further their evil plans.
Then I chose the expansion of Medicare in 2006, and got crickets.
You ignored all of that and focused in on a reddit thread showing the exact type of extremist responses that you're exhibiting here. And called me a donkey. Guess you're having a bad day. Hope it gets better, sweetheart. High school is tough
I did a Google search earlier for another user, and Wikipedia mentioned that in 2006, repubs expanded Medicare and introduced a new plan for seniors. Feel free to tell me how that was evil
Please show me the nefarious motivations for every response in this thread, then prove to me that Dems don't have nefarious motivations for every single policy they support. I want you to be as critical of dem policy as you are about the experimental drug policy - that is to say, ignore the obvious good it does and look for a way that it could be maliciously interpreted.
After all, I'm sure my aunt Michael didn't actually want to get into the drug experiment that my mom drove her across the country to attempt to join. She should have had the decency to accept dying of cancer a few months later so that pharmaceuticals couldn't take advantage of other people with 3 months to live. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you had terminal cancer.
Wikipedia says congressional Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting in 2006.
Now can you please move the goalposts, tell me why it doesn't count, it was too long ago, etc. I'm sure there's no way I could spend another 20 seconds finding other examples lol
I don't know man, I'm sure they had reasons other than "solely to inflict suffering on other humans". Frankly, I don't care. Republican politicians are mostly scum. But painting every Republican as a one-dimensional caricature that subsists on the suffering of others is shortsighted, naive, hyperbolic, and dangerous.
downvotes here mean exactly as much as they mean anywhere else
AND FOR THE 9TH TIME, I wouldn't write "86" when I meant "no", but expecting restaurant workers to know restaurant lingo isn't some massive stretch. He's not speaking Latin. the bigger dumbass is 100% the person who actually put 86 cherries into a milkshake.