Qualified Immunity is the most bizarre and backward doctrine. It basically says that the constitution–you know, that piece of law that lays out how the government will protect its people from itself?–that it doesn’t always apply. As long as the government can think of a slightly new way to violate it, then it doesn’t count.
Good news? I mean, I’m glad that the baby-eating machine was stopped for a day, but I don’t think this story is good news, just not-bad news.
You forgot to mention where those cartels get their guns from…
Could you imagine if this Jesus person was real? He’d probably be livid at the blatant misrepresentation that people like this are displaying.
You’re just avoiding the question. Declaring it so does not make it so.
Guys, we’re talking about the ultra wealthy here. I’m not convinced that they can’t afford it. And besides, valuations aren’t based on nothing. The interested parties are valuating based on what they think would be acceptable compensation, should the loan, or whatever, default. Simplest solution? If the government values your assets at a rate where you can’t find a buyer, then the go government would have to purchase at the established rate.
I want to emphasize here that we are talking about a level of wealth that you will never achieve; A level of wealth that indicates a sickness in society.
Commented. Thank you for the link.
Cuba never flew a plane into a building.
Uh, this has already been answered. Every developed nation with strict gun control is safer.
Nope. Atheism is the lack of a logical assertation.
we could colonize the entire galaxy in 200 million years
This is just extrapolating based on math, while ignoring the reality of the actual situation.
Even if we have an amazing breakthrough tomorrow, the reality of interstellar colonization is that you would necessarily be creating two different species by doing so. They would have very little reason to cooperate after a relatively short time. Space is huge, y’all. Communication would be cumbersome at first, and rapidly get worse as the two different species diverged, first culturally, then physically.
And that’s even assuming that we would do it. You’re basically asking a large group of people to sacrifice enormously for, at best, a marginal benefit. We can’t even convince people to stop burning coal, and that’s for our own enormous benifit.
You seem to be confused.
I remember when I was a teenager, and the Republicans were impeaching Clinton for a bj. My parents explained to me that, while what he did was not illegal, it went to show the strength of his character. And, who would want a man like that in office.
Can anyone guess who they voted for in the last two elections?
I see some people that are suggesting that, while that symbol might be popular with nazies, it is likely too ubiquitous to bo only popular with the nazis. That might be true, but political figures should probably exercise a bit more caution than the average citizen when it comes to these kinds of things, if only for the optics.
On the other hand, it is likely tedious to go through all of the media that passes through a political campaign to ensure that these types of things are caught, even if there are staffers assigned to specifically these types of things.
On the other, other hand, it is probably simpler to just not agree with nazis.
Well, three orders of magnitude more actually. Pop! Pop!
What does your experience on social media have to do with free speech?