Unless I'm very much mistaken, that's alt+ left on a computer.
Dammit! You're
Kanye is special. The 13th ammendment also allows the use of prisoners as labor, which is apparently what Kanye has an issue with, but is too crazy to properly convey.
CA’s claim is that when Pai & Co. repealed NN, they also abdicated their authority over whether or not States could draw up their own rules.
Yeah, he really ought to just be using his platform and popularity to promote 13th and knowledge of that prisoner clause and get that portion re-amended - not call for the abolition of the abolition of slavery.
To be fair, Kanye may not care, either. It's entirely possible this is all just for attention, and he knows damn well what he's saying appeals to right wing nutjobs for all the wrong reasons, and doesn't care because he thinks it'll sell albums. Get in on some of the sales that Willie Nelson is losing out on.
Yikes, that’s depressing. But what isn’t these days.
The East had the Iron Curtain, but now we gotta have the Fairy Veil?
Ah, but you're forgetting that officials can "bend the rules" to curry favor, or promote hostility between two countries that are getting unequal treatment. "Well, it's not usually our policy to grant a visa for this purpose, but we can provide a visa for other reasons, because you're representing a nation that has such a valued relationship with the United States."
Does the US issue visas for heterosexual but unmarried partners of diplomats?
Good question.
Which, of course, is just an excuse. Many nations still don’t recognize or allow gay marriage, and the U.S. doing so doesn’t change that. It’s assanine and intentional.
I find the general idea of deferring to a government actor's intent to determine that your rights were not violated to be a thoroughly disgusting idea. That ought to be a one way street for them--intent can turn their otherwise-lawful acts into fucky ones, but not the other way around.Excerpts said:
Otherwise "negligence" wouldn't be a word so often used in legal circles.
How is this different from a stray bullet? If a cop accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, that's very much the government's responsibility, even if it's not a fault, isn't it?
You think cops around here are held responsible for their stray bullets? They tossed a fucking flashbang grenade into an infant's crib during a no-knock drug raid a few years back and weren't held responsible for that (the target of the raid wasn't home, it wasn't actually a major "drug den," and the officer who applied for the warrant lied about the severity in order to obtain said warrant) why would one woman with a mangled arm matter to them?
Looking into it more, it seems large municipalities consider stray shots from policemen hitting bystanders to be unavoidable collateral damage.
To be fair, in that case the
...which is why when these bullets injure/kill people, sometimes it is the suspect who gets that blame.
Yep, I had a buddy who did 17 years for a failed pot heist - not because of the heist itself, but because the cops were "forced" to fire blindly into a residential neighborhood on the other side of the green space they were hiding in and he was charged for a count of reckless endangerment for each home in the neighborhood.
The whole thing gets even more convoluted - the reason they were hiding in that specific green space is because that was where the CBP chopper dropped the weed that he was trying to steal from the CBP officer's nephew.
McCain talked the talk but most of the time didn't walk the walk, so ehhhhhhh.
