Or he's the most prominent candidate in the news cycle by what feels like a large margin.Or, it's still not an election year, so the polls have even a more laughable sample group than normal.
Or he's the most prominent candidate in the news cycle by what feels like a large margin.Or, it's still not an election year, so the polls have even a more laughable sample group than normal.
Thank goodness, because either way once that vote happens, the bashing will finally stop.we can look forward to months of gay bashing in Houston until the vote comes around.
And another win for civil forfeiture too.
Large sums of cash MIGHT be drug money, so it's enough to hold you on. But it's just an excuse to seize the money for the department. This happens all the time and it's basically why you should never carry more than you would carry in your wallet on a normal day unless it's in traveler's checks or a pay slip or something.And the link title is blatant clickbait. The details of the story lends more credence to probable cause. And also false arrest? Why was anyone detained if nothing but cash was found?
They don't, actually. The oblique camera angle just makes it look that way.
Does Russia hate Satanists too?[DOUBLEPOST=1438035185,1438034751][/DOUBLEPOST]Firstly, consider the source. Russia Today.
Second, the comments are hilarious. One "Mickey Dee" is well past incoherence. "Stanists" indeed.
Actually they do. I've seen more than just the picture in my above link, and now you can too:They don't, actually. The oblique camera angle just makes it look that way.
--Patrick
Huh. The optical illusion was one that made me think the star wasn't inverted.Actually they do. I've seen more than just the picture in my above link, and now you can too:
Once it was pointed out to me, I figured that if anyone was going to get it right, it would be the Satanists.The star on his forehead is supposed to be right side up, according to Wikipedia.
It's missing breasts... I guess they didn't want to offend.Does Russia hate Satanists too?[DOUBLEPOST=1438035185,1438034751][/DOUBLEPOST]
Actually they do. I've seen more than just the picture in my above link, and now you can too:
"To Weed Out Protesters at Last Night’s Event, The Satanic Temple Had Attendees Transfer Their Souls to Satan"Hee-hee, looks like there's much more to this than just the creation of the statue itself:
Satanic Temple required protesters to pledge their souls to Satan as condition of entry
--Patrick
Correct, the other way is people misunderstanding stuff, same as with the upside-down cross.
I don't know what you're talking about. He obviously has breasts. Yes, I mean the statue not the drawing.It's missing breasts... I guess they didn't want to offend.
So ya. As I said before, Go Google!!!Last month, French data protection agency CNIL ordered Google to comply with the European "right to be forgotten" order by delisting certain search results not just on the European versions of Google's search engine, but on all versions. Google has now publicly rejected that demand. CNIL has promised a response, and it's likely the case will go before local courts. Google says, This is a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web. While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally. Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared illegal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others: Thailand criminalizes some speech that is critical of its King, Turkey criminalizes some speech that is critical of Ataturk, and Russia outlaws some speech that is deemed to be "gay propaganda." If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place.
France and Belgium have no right to make policy and police another countries citizens that are outside their soil.To each their own. I see things differently and hope France wins. Much as in the current Belgium vs Facebook lawsuit about privacy.
The slippery slope works both ways. Do we want to hand control of the internet completely to the multi- and meganationals, awayfrom all government control? There's a whole lot of good and bad scifi out there about corporations taking over from national governments. While I wouldn't mind more global power to a democratic UN like government (not in my lifetime), thinking Google, Time-Warner, Nestle, Microsoft or Sony have people's best interests at heart is laughable. Government may be inept, corrupt, inefficient and slow, it's also, at least nominally, answerable to the people. A megacorp's only responsibility is to its shareholders. I can do without going further towards dystopia.
France and Belgium would lose their shit if the US passed a law and insisted the world follow it.France and Belgium have no right to make policy and police another countries citizens that are outside their soil.
That's nice. I hope you meet the requirements for the presidency?Guys. Today, right now, on halforums. I am announcing my bid for president of the United States!
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
oh yeah.. I'm only 33... Well if they could bend number 2 for Obama I'm sure they can bend number 1 for meThat's nice. I hope you meet the requirements for the presidency?
1. 35 years of age;
2. Natural born citizen of the US; and
3. Financial backing of a billionaire or five.
Oh cool, for profit lawmaking. NOTHING WRONG AT ALL HERE.State of Georgia sues activist for piracy for posting state law onto the internet
I don't know where to start. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
So this is ultimately over official annotations, which are produced by a third party which then sells the copyright of the annotations back to the state, which sells copies to recoup the costs. The annotations contain items useful/essential to understanding the law like references to case law, notes on intent, etc.How is charging for access to the text of their laws even legal in the first place?
I could see having people/organizations pay a fee to cover print costs, but this is something else entirely.